In a video published 13 August 2017 Shadeed Muhammad made the following rant (MP3 audio):

I do not call these brothers Salafi. I am just being honest with you. These brothers in my eyes are not Salafi. They have not done nothing other than what other people of deviance have done; they have taken bits and pieces of the haqq and they have co-opted it and have manipulated it to create their own methodology. Nothing that you see these brothers do, say, propagate is anything you find the Salaf doing. And tell me one thing, tell me one thing, this whole idea... the guy just gave a khutbah last week, or gave a lecture and said: 'Having a girlfriend is better than sitting with Shadeed Muhammad or Tahir Wyatt.' Wallaahi, what you are doing, let me tell you what you are doing. This is none other than the methodology of the Murjiah, right, where sins are not that bad, they don't really affect me like that. So when you say something like sitting with the people of deviance is worse than fornication and drinking khamr, ok so first of all genius when the scholars made those types of statements, they made them to an environment that had already shunned sin. Sin was already shunned, detestable, hated! You understand what I am saying, [quotes verse in Arabic]: 'And He has made hateful to you disbelief, defiance and disobedience.' (49:7). They lived by that, that was their code of ethic. So when a scholar during that time says: 'Sitting with the people of innovation is worse than sin', what does that actually, what does that... what are they saying? They are saying that innovation, as you see sin, innovation is worse than the way you see sin. What are we saying when we say: Having a girlfriend or drinking khamr is not as bad as sitting with Shadeed Muhammad, you are legalising sin. To a people who are already sinning akhee! To a people who already don't see anything wrong with sin! You are making our brothers immoral! You're legalising sin!

ONE: There are many issues in the above statement which was also excerpted and published by an individual on a separate account and given a title which alleges that "Salafi Publications" are legalising sin, however it is not clear that Shadeed Muhammad was specifically talking about Salafi Publications, rather he was ambiguous and did not mention any specific names, though those whom he intends is clearly understood in a general sense. In any case, the fact of the matter is that Shadeed's speech is being used in this manner, alongside what it contains of lies, errors, oppression and ignorance in matters of religion.

The reality of these people (Tahir, Shadeed, Munir and their supporters and defenders) is that they have never really supported the great work of scholars such as Shaykh Rabee bin Haadee in refuting the Mumayyi'ah and their usool--from them al-Ma'ribee, then al-Halabee (and al-Ramadaani) and likewise al-Ruhaylee--and this is because when you look at them, their da'wah and their walaa and baraa and whom they choose to target and speak against, you will find they are guilty of the very affairs and application of the very usool for which Shaykh Rabee refuted those individuals. However, in order to deceive people they pretend as if they are with Shaykh Rabee, because they know that they cannot win the people's confidence without showing love and loyalty for the Shaykh (and likewise for Shaykh Ubayd and Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee).

They have never had any real connection with these scholars in the past 20 years, nor travelled to them, nor supported them with substance in their positions against those who have clear errors and intend evil for the Salafi usool through false innovated principles.

Because these are undeniable historical facts, and they know the historical record is not in their favour in terms of their positions, some of those who follow them bring out a conspiracy theory which is that the Salafi callers whom they are targeting, conspired together back in the 1990s, when they saw that Shaykh Rabee was refuting, that they should latch on to this Shaykh and support him and others as well so that through they can gain control of the da'wah in the West. This is what they say, in great desperation, they speak conspiracies.

All of their speech and their activities indicate resentment and anger. These people we are dealing with and those who listen to and follow them, many of them are remnants from past tribulations, from those allied with al-Maghrawi back in the late 1990s, those allied with al-Ma'ribee, those allied with al-Halabi, those allied with al-Ramadani, those allied with al-Ruhaylee, and those allied with al-Hajuri and so on. These people have held things in their hearts since that time and are simply finding the opportunity--just as others before them did through discussion forums--to vent their anger, frustration and resentment. Those who are rallying behind the likes of Shadeed Muhammad, Munir Muhammad and this new wave, are all from this pool, the pool of dissenters in past tribulations, and likewise the fence-sitters.

TWO: As for the statement of Shadeed: "I do not call these brothers Salafi. I am just being honest with you. These brothers in my eyes are not Salafi." Whoever, he is speaking about [as he was vague and non-specific], this amounts to tabdee', and often you will see these people trying to correct what they see to be a wrong, and then fall into that which is equivalent or worse than the alleged wrong itself, and this is what Tahir Wyatt did, when he accused those who criticised him for being used by the Nation of Qarmatah as having the traits of the hypocrites who do not want Islam to spread (see this article). So here Shadeed has made tabdee' of those he is referring to without any evidence apart from storytelling and indulging in exaggeration (Ghuluww) in speech.

THREE: Shadeed said: "Nothing that you see these brothers do, say, propagate is anything you find the Salaf doing." This is evident exaggeration and a lie and gross distortion of the realities. He used the words "Nothing" and "anything" and he said "do, say or propagate" and this is evident falsehood. We would not say this about any of those we oppose and criticise that "nothing" of what they "do, say or propagate" was done by the Salaf. This is injustice. Teaching Tawhid, the Salafi creed, teaching fiqh, acquiring knowledge, praying, fasting, doing umrah, hajj... this is what the Salaf did. So nothing at all, not even anything the Salaf did is done by these brothers? This is Ghuluww (exaggeration).

FOUR: Shadeed said: "And tell me one thing, tell me one thing, this whole idea... the guy just gave a khutbah last week, or gave a lecture and said: 'Having a girlfriend is better than sitting with Shadeed Muhammad or Tahir Wyatt.' Wallaahi, what you are doing, let me tell you what you are doing." It is not clear who he is speaking about and nor did he provide evidence that this was actually said (an audio or something written). However, on the back of it, Shadeed then goes on to make some claims and rulings in religion which demonstrate his ignorance in matters of creed and his injustice in passing rulings upon others. So assuming this was actually said, we will take this up in the points that follow:

FIVE: Shadeed said: "Wallaahi, what you are doing, let me tell you what you are doing. This is none other than the methodology of the Murjiah, right, where sins are not that bad, they don't really affect me like that. So when you say something like sitting with the people of deviance is worse than fornication and drinking khamr, ok so first of all genius when the scholars made those types of statements, they made them to an environment that had already shunned sin. Sin was already shunned, detestable, hated! You understand what I am saying, [quotes verse in Arabic]: 'And He has made hateful to you disbelief, defiance and disobedience.' (49:7). They lived by that, that was their code of ethic. So when a scholar during that time says: 'Sitting with the people of innovation is worse than sin', what does that actually, what does that... what are they saying? They are saying that innovation, as you see sin, innovation is worse than the way you see sin."

There are numerous points on this:

1. The deen of the Murji'ites is that sin does not harm in the presence of eemaan and that the obligatory perfection of faith in the heart can be attained devoid of any obligatory good deeds. When the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) admonished a Companion for invoking the curse of Allaah upon a habitual drinker and said of this sinner "Do not curse him, for he loves Allaah and His Messenger", then the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was not teaching us that sins are not that bad and nor that they do not harm faith, but he was teaching us that sinners, despite their sin, can still be lovers of Allaah and His Messenger. In contrast, when he spoke against the Kharijites, despite their overt piety, he described them with severe words and negated that the Qur'an goes beyond their throats and incited their killing, which is what Ali (radiyallahu anhu) and the Companions did.

   So the presence of that apparent piety did not prevent him from making these very severe judgements. This teaches us that a person of innovation and misguidance, even if he decorates himself with worship, can be considered evil and blameworthy with no regard for his apparent piety and that a sinner (who is upon the correct creed and usool of the religion) even if he falls into sin habitually, then he can still be recognised as one who loves Allaah and His Messenger by virtue of other deeds he does and due to holding on to sound religion in terms of usool.

   As Ibn Taymiyyah said: "So this man was a habitual, frequent drinker of alcohol, but alongside this, since he was of sound creed, and loved Allaah and His Messenger, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) testified to that for him and prohibited his cursing... But as for them [the Kharijites], despite their abundant prayer, fasting and recitation and what they were upon of worship and asceticism, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ordered their killing, and Ali bin Abi Talib and whoever was with him from the Companions of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) killed them, and that was because of their departure from the Sunnah of the Prophet and his Shariah." (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 11/473-474).

2. Secondly, the speech of the Salaf makes clear the affair and this is the difference between Salafis and Khalafis (the claimants), Khalafis do not return to the speech of the Salaf to ensure correct understanding and application, rather they use their own aql and ra'i--just like Shadeed is doing here--and they use flowery speech in order to conceal or twist the realities. Further, some of them say that the aathar of the Salaf are not evidence in matters of religion... they desire to to sever the understanding of the Salaf--which we have been ordered and commanded to follow in the texts--they desire to sever this from the Book and the Sunnah. And this is the distinguishing sign between Ahl al-Sunnah and Ahl al-Bid'ah in that Ahl al-Sunnah only look to the Book and the Sunnah through the understanding of the Salaf and this is known by the aathaar that have come from them.

   Arta'ah bin al-Mundhir said: "That my son is a faasiq amongst the fussaaq is more beloved to me than that he is a person of desires." (al-Sharh wal-Ibaanah, p. 89).

   Saeed bin Jubair said: "That my son accompanies a faasiq who cuts off from his family is more beloved to me than a worshipping innovator.." (al-Barbahari, Sharh al-Sunnah).

   Al-Shaafi'ee said: "That a servant meets Allaah with every sin besides Shirk is better than that he meets him with something of the desires (innovations)." (Al-Sharh wal-Ibaanah, p. 87).

   Imaam Ahmad said: "The sinful of Ahl al-Sunnah are the awliyaa of Allaah and the ascetic worshippers of Ahl al-Bid'ah are the enemies of Allaah." (Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah, 1/184).

   Yunus bin Ubayd said to his son: "I prohibit from zina, stealing and drinking alcohol, but that you meet Allaah (azzawajall) with this is better than that you meet him with the view of Amr bin Ubayd and the companions of Amr." (al-Siyar 6/294).

   Al-Awwaam bin Hawshab said regarding his son, Eesaa: "By Allaah, that I see Eesaa sitting with the people of musical instruments (lute, harp), [alcoholic] drinks and futility is more beloved to me than that I see him sitting with the people of disputation, the people of innovation." (Ibn Waddaah, al-Bida' wal-Nahi anhaa, p. 56).

   Al-Barbahareee said: "When you see a man from Ahl al-Sunnah, lowly in his path and way, a faasiq, faajir (sinner) a person of disobedience, astray (in this regard), but he is upon the Sunnah, then accompany him and sit with him, for his disobedience will not harm you. And when you see a man, striving in worship, leading an ascetic life, consumed in worship, but is a person of desires, do not accompany him or sit with him. Do not listen to his speech and do not walk with him in the walking path, for I am not secure that you are delighted by his path and perish with him." (Sharh al-Sunnah).

   Shadeed exaggerates and claims and makes it appear as if sin had been totally shunned and was non-existent in the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) which is untrue, and likewise in the time of the Salaf, which is also untrue because the Salaf would not be making statements like the above in such a case.

3. Shadeed tries to change the above (what is indicated in these narrations) and he says: " So when a scholar during that time says: 'Sitting with the people of innovation is worse than sin', what does that actually, what does that... what are they saying? They are saying that innovation, as you see sin, innovation is worse than the way you see sin." What the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did with respect to the habitual drinker of alcohol and what the Salaf said in the quotes above go a lot more further than what is in the claim of Shadeed who asserts that all they were trying to tell the people was: See innovation worse than you see sin. Rather, they went beyond that and said what they said as is clear with respect to actual sinners and that it was more beloved to them that they see their sons engaged in sin and futility or mixing with major sinners than seeing them mixing with the people of desires and that habitual major sinners can be lovers of Allaah and His Messenger who should not be cursed, for they can be the awliyaa of Allaah, despite their sin, without that entailing belittling of sin in any way.

4. There is nothing in the statement of the Prophet (sallaallaahu alayhi wasallam) regarding the habitual drinker for whom he witnessed that he loves Allaah and His messenger and nor in the speech of the Salaf regarding falling into sin being better to them than falling into innovation which indicates justification of sin. Rather, the habitual drinker was punished by the legal authority and as for the Salaf, they would speak of the evil of sin and prohibit from it, but in expressing this statement (of preferring sin to innovation), in no way were they promoting sin or claiming that sins do not harm faith. For they were simply comparing between two evils and showing that the lesser of the two is preferred. And this is the intent behind these statements. It is better for a person to remain a sinner, upon the straight path than to be a pious worshipper, straying from the straight path, because the first knows he will be punished and can show remorse and repent, but the second thinks he is rightly guided in his misguidance and can lead others into believing that he is on a path of guidance. Thus, the condition of the first is much better than the condition of the second.

SIX: Then at the end of the clip, Shadeed says: What are we saying when we say: Having a girlfriend or drinking khamr is not as bad as sitting with Shadeed Muhammad, you are legalising sin. To a people who are already sinning akhee! To a people who already don't see anything wrong with sin! You are making our brothers immoral! You're legalising sin!

And this is what demonstrates his Ghuluww (exaggeration) once again and his ignorance in religion and his oppression in judgement upon others. He says that when you make the likes of this statement which he alleges was made--and upon him is to bring the proof--but assuming it has been said, he is claiming that this is legalising sin. The word legalise means "to make lawful", "to allow by law", "to permit under law", "to make something that was previously illegal, permissible by law". The reality of what Shadeed is saying--remember he is speaking in the context of Islaam, its creed and its legislation--he is saying that the person who made this remark he is criticising has made istihlaal of sin (in this case having a girlfriend, or committing zina). To make istihlaal of what is haraam is kufr, and this is in essence what Shadeed is saying. One could have said that this is "encouraging sin" or "promoting sin" or what is similar, which would not indicate legalisation, however, he said, twice, that this is legalising sin. And this is istihlaal, to make lawful what is unlawful. This is what he is saying in the plain English language, that those who convey a correct meaning conveyed by the Salaf on the basis of what they, the Salaf, understood from the texts, that they are making istihlaal of sin. And in the video clip, Shadeed is very angry and forceful when he says this and he repeats it twice.

SEVEN: So what we see is that the brother he is speaking about--and we do not know who he is referring to--alluded to a meaning spoken of by the Salaf and which itself has a basis in revealed texts, in the Prophetic Sunnah, and Ibn Taymiyyah has elaborated on this matter too in numerous places and then Shadeed strips this statement of its signification (its exact and full meaning and sense), claiming that all it meant was that one should see innovation worse than he sees sin, so he strips it down and removes the physical and real contexts and real situations in which it was said [as per the Prophetic traditions and narrations from the Salaf], and then renders it as a statement of kufr because of what it entails of legalisation (which is istihlaal), as he claims. What a great crime indeed, emanating from a mind that has been twisted by resentment and anger, all of which is evident on the expressions of his face.

EIGHT: The brother who is alleged to have made this remark, and it remains to be proven that it was said by this brother, whoever he is, it is clear that what he means is that for you to be engaged in sin like having a girlfriend (or drinking etc.)--which is clearly understood to be a sin and unlawful--is better than for you to sit with Shadeed and be poisoned with his bid'ah. And the bid'ah of Shadeed and Tahir and their likes is that they--due to either jahl or hawaa--are an intermediate step between Sunnah and its people and Bid'ah and its people. Some times they even benefit the people of kufr on account of their misguided actions in da'wah: How can you retweet a Baatinee Qarmatee kafir and how can you be thanked by the team of a Baatinee Qarmatee kafir for "displaying the spirit of unity with them" as they saw it?! This indicates misguided, misjudged statements and actions in da'wah whose ends are not praiseworthy. It is to the warranted criticism of the likes of these types of interactions that their resentment and rage is directed. This is what they are angry about and what they detest.

Click image to read:

These people do not value what the Rabbani scholars have done of clarifying and clearing the way from false, destructive principles that come from the likes of al-Ma'ribi, al-Halabi, al-Ramadani, al-Ruhaylee--such false, innovated principles that are aimed at silencing Ahl al-Sunnah from warranted, legitimate criticism of men, groups, parties, principles and behaviours--and they form a revolving door between the Sunnah and the Hizbiyyeen. So instead of aiding the truth, they remain silent [if not waging war against those who convey the rulings and refutations of the Shaykh Rabee, Shaykh Ubayd, Shaykh Muhammad and others] and this is because they have goals, agendas and visions of a type of da'wah which is justified by the very principles of those deviants and Innovators that have been refuted [al-Ma'ribi, al-Halabi, al-Raamadani, al-Ruhayli]. Hence, they cannot come out openly and support what scholars like Shaykh Rabee have done of clarifying the way of the ignorant, misguided and hateful and of making clear the signposts of truth as well as the traits, qualities and behaviours of genuine Salafis, by which they are distinguished from the claimants, fence-sitters and deserters.

NINE: Because they have no answer to this, and because their history shows takhdhil (abandonment, desertion) from the field of battle when the scholars were engaged in fierce battles against the deviants (Shaykh Rabee against Safar, Salman, Abd al-Rahmaan Abd al-Khaliq, Adnaan Aroor, al-Maghrawi, al-Ma'ribee, al-Halabi, al-Hajuri), Shaykh Ubayd and Shaykh Muhammad (against al-Ruhaylee and others) and so on, all they have to undermine the people of the Sunnah is a conspiracy theory, which is that it is all about controlling the da'wah and that a way was found to use the scholars (by promoting their refutations) to gain control of the da'wah, way back in the 1990s. That is to say, the people so accused saw into the future by two decades and saw that Shaykh Rabee will be right in his refutations of Safar and Salmaan, Abdul-Rahman Abd al-Khaliq, Adnan Aroor, al-Maghrawi, al-Ma'ribee, al-Halabi, al-Ruhaylee, al-Hajuri and so on - and all of this at a time (mid 1990s) when none of the major scholars were even supporting Shaykh Rabee against Safar and Salman, rather they were defending them! So these Salafis as the conspiracy theorists now allege--despite the fact that the three greatest scholars at the time (al-Albani Ibn Baz, Ibn al-Uthaymin) were speaking well of the likes of Safar and Salman, or at least making excuses for them--saw into the future and saw that Shaykh Rabee is going to be right in his speech about future deviants and that by latching on to him, they will be able to control the da'wah! And they endured all the harms, insults and attacks they subsequently received from the Qutbiyyah, Surooriyyah, Turaathiyyah, Takfiris, Jihadists, Kharijites and various types of Hizbees and likewise they endured all the slanders and false accusations made against them on infamous forums, they endured all of this--not because they value the Salafi creed and methodology--but because they were motivated by controlling the da'wah!

TEN: Pay attention to Shadeed's statement: "What are we saying when we say: Having a girlfriend or drinking khamr is not as bad as sitting with Shadeed Muhammad, you are legalising sin. To a people who are already sinning akhee!" Pay attention to the underlined words, "is not as bad as", which indicates that Shadeed clearly understood what this brother is supposed to have said: that sin, though bad, is not as bad as deviation or mixing with those upon deviation. And this is exactly what the Salaf said. So this is basically a hujjah against Shadeed that he is criticising something, which through his own speech, indicates that he grasped it correctly, mentally and rationally that is, as evidenced by his words, but because of the disease in his heart, Allaah did not give him tawfeeq in recognising it as truth.

There is nothing therefore in the statement of this brother which indicates the deen of the Murji'ites, just like there is nothing in the statements of the Salaf cited above, or the Prophetic statements regarding the sinful habitual drinker, that sin does not harm faith and is not bad.

Look at his statement: "To a people who are already sinning akhee!". The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said to a habitual drinker, who is already sinning, "He loves Allaah and His Messenger", does that mean the Prophet encouraged sin or taught that it does not harm faith. Or was the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) teaching that eemaan is not a singular entity and that both obedience and disobedience, in their various forms and types, can reside together in the same person, and that a person can be a believer, a lover of Allaah and His Messenger, in the presence of sin, even habitual sin. In a similar fashion, we take the same from the various statements of the Salaf.

This shows the greatness of the jahl of Shadeed Muhammad in that he cannot see a truthful statement, despite verbally repeating it himself after having mentally processed and grasped it, and then claims it is falsehood and innovation, that it is the deen of the Murji'ites, nay it is even beyond that and is the realm of kufr [istihlaal, legalisation of sin is kufr], when in reality it is that which is found in the Prophetic traditions and statements of the Imaams of the Salaf (that sin, though bad, is not as bad as innovation and falling into sin or mixing with a sinner is better than falling into innovation or mixing with an innovator)!

So what do you think of a man who first accuses people with promoting the deen of the Murji'ah based upon jahl of aqidah and of the manhaj of the Salaf, and then falls into the manhaj of the Khawaarij by accusing them of kufr!