u/Extension_Brick6806

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

The Necessary Implication of the Mubaahalah

There is a necessary implication arising from the mubaahalah of Abu al-Miswar Zayd, when he said:

>"O Allaah, I call You to witness that You know that Ashariyya are misguided zanadiqa brothers of those who worship Al Uzza and Al Laat including Nawawi and Ibn Hajar and all the others that the Modajana have defended and called as Muslim

>If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me, my women, my children and my entire family to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Ameen"

(Source)

What This Position Necessarily Entails

Note that he was approved by the Minnesotan Abu an-Nouman Bashem al-Misri (Wild_Extra_Dip) and appointed by him. The point here is that, if this represents what Bashem agrees with, acknowledges, and believes to be the case, then the implications do not stop with imam an-Nawawi and al-Haafidh ibn Hajar themselves.

In other words, this position necessarily implicates countless scholars throughout history who praised them, regarded them as imams, acknowledged their scholarship, benefited from their works, or otherwise regarded them as Muslim scholars.

These include, among others:

• Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah
• Imam adh-Dhahabi
• al-Haafidh ibn Katheer
• al-Haafidh as-Sakhaawi
• Scholars of ad-Da'wah an-Najdiyyah
• al-'Allaamah 'Abdurrahman al-Mu'allami
• Shaykh 'Abdurrahman as-Sa'di
• Shaykh ibn Baaz
• Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzan
• Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr
• Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen
• Shaykh al-Albani

And the list goes on. This means that each and every Ahlus-Sunnah scholar today is, in the eyes of the Haddaadiyyah, therefore worshippers of al-Laat and al-'Uzzah, meaning that they are all polytheists.

Through these false principles, I could already see the implications of how they view every Ahlus-Sunnah scholar. Hence why I previously posted about their egregious takfeer of the Ummah:

• A List of Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars Branded "Enemies of Islam" by the Haddaadiyyah

I would therefore challenge you, Bashem, to this exact mubaahalah. So, are you willing to make this invocation?:

>"O Allaah, I call You to witness that You know that an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar are misguided Ash'ariyyah zanaadiqah who worship al-Laat and al-'Uzzah, and that all those who regard an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar as Muslims, whom we call the Mudajjanah, are likewise worshippers of al-Laat and al-'Uzzah.

>If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me, my women, my children and my entire family to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Ameen."

Then I would make the mubaahalah by saying that imam an-Nawawi and al-Haafidh ibn Hajar are scholars of the Muslims and that they are not zanaadiqah. Would you accept that, ya Bashem?

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

For context:

• A Mubaahalah Challenge to Abu al-Miswar Zayd
• (Finally) Mubahala Accepted! by abul_miswar_zayd
• Mubaahalah Accepted

Embracing Islam and the Brotherhood I Found

When I embraced Islam many years ago, alhamdulillah, I was convinced that Islam was the truth. Brothers I met welcomed me, taught me, and cared for me. This brotherhood they showed has had an effect upon me.

• https://student.faith/about.html

Seeking Knowledge and Calling Others to Islam

I sought knowledge and learned from many learned people through lectures, books, and studying under them. I also called others to Islam, alhamdulillah. Allah opened the hearts of some of them to Islam, and He opened the hearts of family members to see the beauty of Islam.

• https://student.faith/articles/invitation.html

Ignorance, Arrogance, and the Mubaahalah

It is therefore quite disturbing to see misguided Muslims, through their ignorance and arrogance, invoke Allah's punishment upon themselves. However, da'wah has to continue, and lies need to be dispelled. I've put forward the clarifications of scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah regarding imam Abu Haneefah, imam as-Suyooti, imam an-Nawawi, and al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, both in our subreddit and elsewhere. However, abul_miswar_zayd openly admitted:

>"Allaah is my witness that I haven't read this post of cn3m. Not even most of it. Not even a small bit of it."

By accepting the mubaahalah, they knowingly invoked upon themselves the punishment they had stipulated.

Why even a mubaahalah, you might wonder? Then read the following:

• Article on the Mutual Invocation of Allah's Curse Between Ahlus-Sunnah and the Khaarijite ibn Shams, with a Short Clip of the Mubaahalah

This then boils down to the false allegation of me being a kaafir, when I am a Muslim, alhamdulillah.

The guy then added extra names he had been disparaging and, for some reason, did not even ask me to make mubaahalah regarding them. I had no issue at all making du'aa' to Allah concerning something I have no doubt about, especially when scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have clarified the status of:

• Imam Abu Haneefah
• Imam as-Suyooti
• Imam an-Nawawi
• Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar

Hence, below are scholarly references:

Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars on the Status of imam Abu Haneefah

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said:

>Alhamdulillah. The 'aqeedah of ash-Shaafi'ee, may Allah be pleased with him, is the 'aqeedah of the early imams of Islam, such as Maalik, ath-Thawri, al-Awzaa'ee, ibn al-Mubarak, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh. It is also the 'aqeedah of the exemplary mashaayikh, such as al-Fudayl ibn 'Iyaad, Abu Sulayman ad-Daaraani, Sahl ibn 'Abdullah at-Tustari, and others. There was no disagreement among these imams and those like them regarding the foundations of the Deen. The same applies to Abu Haneefah, may Allah be pleased with him, for the 'aqeedah authentically established from him concerning at-Tawheed, al-Qadar, and similar matters agrees with the 'aqeedah of these imams. Their 'aqeedah is that which the Companions and those who followed them in righteousness adhered to, and it is that which the Book and the Sunnah proclaim.

(Source)

I would also reference the scholar and historian, shaykh Dr. Muhammad Musa as-Shareef, who spoke about the biography and legacy of imam Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon him, which again demonstrates his great status:

• The Legacy of imam Abu Haneefah

Similarly, al-Haafidh Ismaa'eel ibn 'Umar ibn Katheer, another scholar of history, hadith, and fiqh, described imam Abu Haneefah as the jurist of Iraq, one of the imams of Islam, one of the eminent leading scholars, one of the pillars of the scholars, and one of the four followed imams. (Source)

Relevant:

• حُبُّ أبي حَنِيفةَ من الإيمان
• https://student.faith/insights/010.html#abu-haneefah-veil
• https://student.faith/insights/013.html

Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars on the Status of imam as-Suyooti

In the madhhab of imam Ahmad, there is one great Hanbali scholar whose work is often referred to and relied upon. He is imam ibn al-'Imaad (d. 1089 H), and his well-known book is Bughyat Uli an-Nahaa fee Sharh Ghaayat al-Muntahaa.

Another great work of his is Shadharaat adh-Dhahab, a biographical encyclopaedia covering ten centuries in the history of some famous hadith scholars and other notable figures. He praised imam Jalaal ad-Deen as-Suyooti (d. 911 H) by stating: "The musnid, the muhaqqiq, the precise investigator, the author of outstanding and beneficial works." Then he said:

>"Ad-Dawoodi thoroughly listed his abundant, numerous, complete, comprehensive, beneficial, precise, carefully edited, authoritative, and recognized works, and they exceeded five hundred compositions. Their fame is sufficient and removes the need to mention them. Most of his writings became well known during his lifetime throughout the lands, east and west."

Ash-Shawkani (d. 1250 H) described as-Suyooti: "The great imam, author of many works." (Source)

That's why scholars do not prevent others from benefiting from his works. One fatwa states:

>There is no harm in reading the works of al-Haafidh Jalaal ad-Deen as-Suyooti and benefiting from them, for he was a scholar well-versed in various sciences, including tafseer, hadith, and others. He has many works that one cannot do without.

>As for his creed, he was Ash'ari. However, the fact that he was Ash'ari does not mean that everything he had was incorrect. Otherwise, if that were applied consistently, the majority of Islamic books would be discarded.

>What should be done is to benefit from the books of such scholars in the areas of fiqh, usool, tafseer, and similar fields. As for matters of creed, one should refer back to the statements of the Salaf concerning issues in which there is disagreement.

(Source)

This also explains why shaykh 'Abdurrahman al-Barraak praised Tafseer al-Jalaalayn. This is the beauty of the efforts of our scholars: giving constructive criticism, clarifying mistakes, and showing why we should turn to contemporary scholars when studying such works by scholars known to have some zallaat. (Source)

Contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have endorsed and recommended the works of imam as-Suyooti, such as:

• Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez at-Tareefi
• Shaykh 'Abdullah al-Jibreen
• Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr
• Shaykh 'Abdullah al-Ghunayman
• Shaykh Muhammad Adam al-Ethiopi

If Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have endorsed the works of imam as-Suyooti, then they must contain things that are beneficial for Muslims to learn.

I must also emphasize that we, as Ahlus-Sunnah, do not believe great scholars to be infallible. Elements of human shortcomings will therefore be found among scholars. When studying under scholars, one will notice a methodology in how mistakes are dealt with, whether those mistakes are grave or minor.

The Haddaadiyyah have come with unfounded allegations against imam as-Suyooti, at times even relying upon works that scholars themselves have not established as being authored by him.

When 100% of an allegation rests upon an unproven attribution, the allegation itself rests upon an unproven foundation. Scholars have cited Professor Dr. Sameer ad-Droubi of the Department of Arabic Language at Mu'tah University in Jordan, who summarized the matter as follows:

>"Works that were not as-Suyooti's were attributed to him, and many books were falsely ascribed to him, particularly compilations covering several fields, works of literature and anecdotes, and especially those dealing with sexual matters..."

(Source)

Relevant:

• ! كتاب منسوب للحافظ السيوطي

This leads to another point regarding what shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr said.

Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars on the Status of imam an-Nawawi

See the commentary of shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr while reading the work of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah:

>Shaykhul-Islam (may Allah Most High have mercy on him) says: "People doubt the sincerity of his intention, but what is most likely is that he acts according to what has reached him and what he has understood from the texts."

>This is the statement of shaykhul-Islam. Meaning, if such words are said about ar-Raazi and his conduct, as you have heard, then what about the likes of ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi, and others whose good intentions, sound methodology in following the Sunnah, and care for it are well known?

(Source)

Al-Haafidh ibn Rajab as "the faqeeh, the zaahid, the exemplary model" in his explanation of the Forty Hadith.

So, did al-Haafidh ibn Rajab betray the Ummah by praising imam an-Nawawi, or are those who considered imam an-Nawawi an innovator, and others who have even gone so far as to say that he was a kaafir, the ones who have betrayed the Ummah?

Yes, the Haddaadiyyah have gone so far as to attribute statements and positions to imam an-Nawawi that scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah never attributed to him. So, who is betraying the Ummah: the scholars who knew the imam and his works best, or the Haddaadiyyah who came much later and attributed to him what those scholars never did?

Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars on the Status of al-Haafidh ibn Hajar

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd said:

>"And with this, you come to know that the accursed initiative of declaring the imams—such as an-Nawawi, ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed, and ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani—as disbelievers, or belittling their status, or labeling them as misguided innovators, all of this is the work of Shaytan. It is a gateway to misguidance and leading others astray, as well as corruption and spreading corruption. If the witnesses of the Shari'ah are discredited, then what they testify to is also discredited. However, the ignorant and reckless do not comprehend nor do they verify."

(Source)

Relevant:

• A List of Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars Branded "Enemies of Islam" by the Haddaadiyyah
• Exposing abul_miswar_zayd: A Case Study in Haddaadi Raafidhi-Style Taqiyyah

Refutations and Clarifications Regarding the Haddaadiyyah

I would therefore also like to reference shaykh Abul-Fadl al-Misri, who continuously debunks, dispels, refutes, clarifies, and exposes the lies of the Haddaadiyyah. This includes claims in which the Haddaadiyyah allege that they are directly quoting certain imams, or claim that those imams held particular positions, when the context says otherwise or the content itself is not as they attempt to infer and project it.

The channel is of great value:

• قناة أبي الفضل المصري

The Consequences of the Mubaahalah

Therefore, if we are to witness Muhammad ibn Shams and other Haddaadiyyah being afflicted with great trials, punishments, or sudden death, then know that they themselves asked Allah to inflict upon them what they stipulated in the mubaahalah.

It would be a great reminder not to tread upon such misguidance, and a deterrent for others from mistreating and lying against the imams. This alone is a testament to the soundness of the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah.

What If They Realize They Were Wrong?

One might then wonder: What if one of them realizes that he was wrong in disparaging the imams and in making false takfeer against Muslims? Then know that Allah is ever Merciful and ever Forgiving.

Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) visited a Muslim man who had become extremely weak and emaciated, "like a chick." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) asked him whether he had been making a particular supplication. The man replied:

>"O Allah, whatever You were going to punish me with in the Hereafter, hasten it for me in this world."

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) responded:

>"SubhanAllah! You cannot bear it, or you are not capable of it."

Then he instructed him to say instead:

>"O Allah, grant us good in this world and good in the Hereafter, and protect us from the punishment of the Fire."

Anas then says that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) supplicated to Allah for the man, and Allah cured him.

(Source)

If they repent, then I can only hope for them to make public tawbah, to clearly recant what they have said, and to instead pray to Allah for mercy before they are afflicted with something they themselves asked for.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أنني بريء مما اتهمني به أبو المسور زيد من أنني كافر وأن اتهامه لي بذلك كذب وافتراء علي

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that I am innocent of Abu al-Miswar Zayd's accusation that I am a kaafir, and that his accusation against me is a lie and a fabrication against me.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

And I add:

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن النعمان بن ثابت أبا حنيفة رحمه الله ليس مبتدعًا

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that an-Nu'maan ibn Thaabit, Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon him, is not an innovator.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر السيوطي رحمه الله مسلم

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that 'Abdurrahman ibn Abi Bakr as-Suyooti, may Allah have mercy upon him, is a Muslim.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن يحيى بن شرف النووي رحمه الله ليس زنديقًا

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, is not a zindeeq.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن أحمد بن علي بن حجر العسقلاني رحمه الله ليس زنديقًا

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that Ahmad ibn 'Ali ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani, may Allah have mercy on him, is not a zindeeq.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

فَذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمُ الْحَقُّ ۖ فَمَاذَا بَعْدَ الْحَقِّ إِلَّا الضَّلَالُ ۖ فَأَنَّىٰ تُصْرَفُونَ

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

If a warning warrants so much attention and the allegations are cried out loud, then why is there no evidence?

Since you accused me of all kinds of vileness, kufr, shirk, and zandaqah, I therefore challenge you to mubaahalah that I am none of what you have accused me of.

Post your mubaahalah in r/Modajanah under the title "Mubaahalah Accepted." Then, hopefully, you will utter it with sincerity in your seclusion, but do include the following wording in your mubaahalah post:

>اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن طالبَ الإيمانِ كافرٌ وأن اتهامي له بذلك حق وليس بكذب ولا افتراء

>فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

>"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that Student of Faith is a kaafir, and that my accusation against him is true and is neither a lie nor a fabrication.

>If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

After you post your mubaahalah, I will, insha'Allah, likewise post mine in my sub under the same title. I will also utter it with sincerity and write the following:

>اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أنني بريء مما اتهمني به أبو المسور زيد من أنني كافر وأن اتهامه لي بذلك كذب وافتراء علي

>فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

>"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that I am innocent of Abu al-Miswar Zayd's accusation that I am a kaafir, and that his accusation against me is a lie and a fabrication against me.

>If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Who is qualified to speak about the Deen?

When it comes to the Deen of Allah, who is really qualified to speak and teach anything about Islam? Is mere qualification as a Muslim itself a justification for one to simply speak and write about Islam? How, in the first place, did Allah describe what people should do when they do not know?

Allah said:

>فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

>"So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." (An-Nahl 16:43)

Here, the Ayah means that when we do not know, we ask the people of knowledge.

This is similar to what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said concerning matters that are clear and those which are doubtful:

>"The lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear, and between them are doubtful matters which many people do not know."

This is the sixth hadith in Forty Hadith of imam an-Nawawi, who, by the way, was described by al-Haafidh ibn Rajab as "the faqeeh, the zaahid, the exemplary model" in his explanation of the Forty Hadith.

So, did al-Haafidh ibn Rajab betray the Ummah by praising imam an-Nawawi, or are those who considered imam an-Nawawi an innovator, and others who have even gone so far as to say that he was a kaafir, the ones who have betrayed the Ummah?

Yes, the Haddaadiyyah have gone so far as to attribute statements and positions to imam an-Nawawi that scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah never attributed to him. So, who is betraying the Ummah: the scholars who knew the imam and his works best, or the Haddaadiyyah who came much later and attributed to him what those scholars never did?

The hadith above is originally reported in al-Bukhaari and Muslim. The point here is that there are matters which many people do not know, and therefore not everyone is qualified to speak independently concerning them.

The warning concerning ar-Ruwaybidah

Moreover, what did the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say about ar-Ruwaybidah?

He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned that there would come deceptive years in which the liar would be believed, the truthful would be considered a liar, the treacherous would be trusted, the trustworthy would be considered treacherous, and ar-Ruwaybidah would speak. When asked who ar-Ruwaybidah were, he described him as:

>"The insignificant man who speaks concerning the affairs of the general public."

This is reported from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) in ibn Maajah.

Therefore, we always refer back to the scholars. We should not get ahead of ourselves in matters of Islam.

The Salaf's criticism of storytellers

The Salaf strongly criticized storytellers, and at times in the harshest manner. It is one thing for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to tell stories concerning the past, because this was based upon revelation from Allah. A storyteller at the time of the Salaf, however, referred to people who would speak and preach to others without possessing the necessary knowledge.

ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

>"There was no [public] storytelling in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), nor in the time of Abu Bakr, nor in the time of 'Umar."

(Ibn Maajah, 3754)

'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) questioned a storyteller:

>"Do you know the abrogating and the abrogated [texts]?"

He said, "No."

'Ali replied:

>"You have ruined yourself and ruined others."

(Source)

Speaking publicly about Islam without knowledge

The problem is that someone is speaking publicly about Islam without knowledge of the sciences of Shari'ah, specifically without knowledge of the principles necessary to understand jurisprudence and the texts correctly.

Hence, such people become misguided, and there is scholarly consideration that those who are actually qualified to speak in detail about Seerah and matters relating to the stories of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them) are scholars, because they possess knowledge of the sciences of Shari'ah and understand how the texts are to be interpreted together.

Muhammad ibn Sireen is reported to have been asked about storytellers, and he said:

>"An innovation. The first people to introduce storytelling were the Harooriyyah [i.e. the Khawaarij]."

(Source)

This is very significant here, as the Haddaadiyyah have the same problems of misguidance seen among the Khawaarij: extremism concerning judgments upon others, alongside this phenomenon of storytelling.

The Haddaadiyyah and those fascinated by them

What have we observed so far concerning the Haddaadiyyah, their subscribers and followers, and those who are fascinated by them, show lenience towards them, and befriend them when these are people who would otherwise require boycott for being known innovators?

Those who have befriended or learned from such Haddaadiyyah innovators have never really learned anything of substance from them. This has become apparent to such an extent that a growing number of youth who contact me can themselves see that the way I relay knowledge is not from myself. I do not put myself forward. Rather, I rely upon what the scholars convey.

How could this not be important when imam Ahmad himself said:

>"Beware of speaking on a matter in which you have no imam."

When storytelling replaces knowledge

The Taabi'ee Abu Qilaabah gives perhaps the clearest early explanation:

>"Nothing has killed knowledge like the storytellers. A man may sit with a storyteller for a year and grasp nothing from him, whereas he sits with knowledge and does not rise until he has grasped something."

(Source)

This precisely highlights the problem: a person can listen to a storyteller repeatedly, perhaps becoming fascinated with him and emotionally attached to what he says, yet after all that time he has not actually learned knowledge.

The issue we are dealing with

The issue here is that we are not merely dealing with people who cite weak or fabricated reports. Rather, we are dealing with an innovator presenting himself as though he is capable and knowledgeable, being pretentious as though he possesses knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, while incorporating matters relating to 'aqeedah and judgments without referring them back to contemporary scholars.

Rather, I once came across what I regarded as a clear case in which Minnesotan Abu an-Nouman Bashem al-Misri (Wild_Extra_Dip) reproduced material from scholarly works without referencing those who had written them, while presenting this "knowledge" under his own name. This was before we condemned him among the Haddaadiyyah. When I inquired about it in his comments, my comment was removed.

And we have already seen his posts filled with storytelling.

Do not be deceived by pleasing speech

Therefore, do not be fooled when reading from storytellers, however beneficial and benign what they present may appear. Rather, what appears beneficial can be very dangerous and poisonous. They place over themselves a cloak of "knowledge" and attempt to captivate impressionable hearts through speech made to sound pleasing and convincing, as though they genuinely care for you.

They may also speak about themselves in high regard, presenting themselves as though they are people who ought to be respected and looked up to. But such respect is not simply given; it is earned. A pleasing manner of speech, an appearance of concern, and a cloak of "knowledge" should never be mistaken for actual knowledge, sincerity, or qualification.

What did imam ibnul-Qayyim say?

>"The enemy makes it appear good to him that he should meet him with cheerfulness, an open and pleasant face, and good speech, until he becomes attached to him and then seeks to free himself from him but is unable."

The surrounding passage is even more relevant. Ibnul-Qayyim explains that among Shaytan's schemes is that a person may be drawn through good manners, pleasantness, cheerfulness, and agreeable speech, until attachment develops and escaping the harm becomes difficult. This occurs in Ighaathat al-Lahfaan, in the discussion concerning the schemes of Shaytan, immediately after the section entitled, approximately, "Among his schemes is making the objectionable appear good and the good appear objectionable." (Source)

When evil is made to appear beneficial

There is a useful statement from ibnul-Qayyim in Shifaa' al-'Aleel:

>"He adorns evil deeds for the soul and causes it to see them in the form of benefits, pleasures, and good things."

Ibnul-Qayyim explains that the affliction consists of Shaytan's embellishment together with the ignorance of the soul: the harmful thing is made to look beneficial, pleasurable, and wholesome, while its actual harm is concealed. (Source)

In Badaa'i' al-Fawaa'id, ibnul-Qayyim explains that Shaytan can actually direct a person towards numerous doors of apparent good in order either to reach one door of evil or to cause him to miss something much better. A person may therefore feel strongly drawn towards something apparently righteous and assume that it cannot possibly be from Shaytan precisely because it appears to be good. (Source)

This is precisely why appearances are not enough. Something sounding beneficial, compassionate, knowledgeable, or even outwardly righteous does not by itself establish that it is sound.

Abu Haneefah and the treatment of the imams

Related to this, have we not seen the Haddaadiyyah disparaging imam Abu Haneefah? Yet what did ibnul-Qayyim say?

In Ijtimaa' al-Juyoosh al-Islaamiyyah, ibnul-Qayyim has a section entitled:

>ذكر أقوال الأئمة الأربعة رضي الله عنهم

>"Mentioning the statements of the four imams, may Allah be pleased with them."

Then, specifically:

>قول الإمام أبي حنيفة رحمه الله، وما يتعلق به

>"The statement of imam Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon him, and what relates to it."

(Source)

So ibnul-Qayyim himself places Abu Haneefah among "the four imams", calls him الإمام, and invokes Allah's mercy upon him.

Ibnul-Qayyim also discusses fabricated ahaadeeth invented both for and against Abu Haneefah and ash-Shaafi'ee:

>ومن ذلك: ما وضعه الكذابون في مناقب أبي حنيفة، والشافعي، على التنصيص على اسمهما، وما وضعه الكذابون أيضا في ذمهما عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وما يروى من ذلك كله كذب

>"Among these are what the liars fabricated concerning the virtues of Abu Haneefah and ash-Shaafi'ee, explicitly mentioning their names, and what the liars also fabricated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in disparagement of them. Everything narrated of this kind is false."

(Source)

So ibnul-Qayyim rejects fabricated attacks against Abu Haneefah just as he rejects fabricated virtues falsely attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Al-Baaqillaani: "The leader of the horsemen"

Have we not seen the Haddaadiyyah disparaging imam al-Baaqillaani and even declaring him a kaafir? Yet what did ibnul-Qayyim say?

In ibnul-Qayyim's al-Kaafiyah ash-Shaafiyah, commonly called the Nooniyyah, he says:

>وكذلك القاضي أبو بكر هو

>ابن الباقلاني قائد الفرسان

A fairly literal translation is:

>"And likewise is al-Qaadi Abu Bakr,

>ibn al-Baaqillaani, the leader of the horsemen."

Or, more idiomatically:

>"The champion of the horsemen."

He then proceeds to cite al-Baaqillaani's at-Tamheed, his treatises, and other writings in support of the point he is discussing.

So how can someone present himself as defending the methodology of the scholars while speaking about al-Baaqillaani in a manner entirely unlike the manner in which ibnul-Qayyim himself spoke about him?

Al-Bayhaqi and books no scholar can do without

Have we not seen the Haddaadiyyah disparaging imam al-Bayhaqi? Yet what did ibnul-Qayyim say?

Ibnul-Qayyim discusses Abu Bakr al-Khallaal's collection of the statements of imam Ahmad, then says:

>وعلى منواله جمع البيهقي في كتابه الذي سماه "جامع النصوص من كلام الشافعي". وهما كتابان جليلان لا يستغني عنهما عالم.

>"And following the same pattern, al-Bayhaqi compiled his book which he called 'Jaami' an-Nusoos min Kalaam ash-Shaafi'ee'. They are two magnificent books which no scholar can do without."

(Source)

Look at the words of ibnul-Qayyim:

>وهما كتابان جليلان لا يستغني عنهما عالم

>"They are two magnificent books which no scholar can do without."

This is not the language of someone attempting to erase al-Bayhaqi from the ranks of the scholars.

An-Nawawi: shaykh Muhyi ad-Deen an-Nawawi

Have we not seen the Haddaadiyyah declare imam an-Nawawi an innovator, with some even going as far as declaring him a kaafir? Yet what did ibnul-Qayyim say?

>منهم الشيخ محيي الدين النووي رحمه الله وغيره

>"Among them is shaykh Muhyi ad-Deen an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy upon him, and others."

(Source)

Notice that ibnul-Qayyim does not merely say "an-Nawawi". He calls him:

>الشيخ محيي الدين النووي

>"Shaykh Muhyi ad-Deen an-Nawawi"

and invokes Allah's mercy upon him.

He also cites an-Nawawi's al-Adhkaar in connection with the discussion.

So who understood imam an-Nawawi better: ibnul-Qayyim, who called him "shaykh Muhyi ad-Deen an-Nawawi" and said "may Allah have mercy upon him", or people centuries later who attempt to portray the imam in a manner the great scholars themselves did not?

Ibnul-Jawzi and acknowledging excellence

Have we not seen the Haddaadiyyah disparaging imam ibnul-Jawzi? Yet what did ibnul-Qayyim say?

In Badaa'i' al-Fawaa'id, ibnul-Qayyim discusses presence of heart in prayer and then says:

>وما أحسن ما قال أبو الفرج ابن الجوزي في بعض وعظه

>"How excellent is what Abu al-Faraj ibnul-Jawzi said in one of his admonitions."

He then quotes ibnul-Jawzi at length:

>حضور القلب أول منزل من منازل الصلاة...

>"The presence of the heart is the first station among the stations of prayer..."

(Source)

The key words are:

>وما أحسن ما قال

>"How excellent is what he said..."

This itself teaches an important principle. Ibnul-Qayyim was capable of criticizing scholars where he believed they had erred, while at the same time acknowledging their excellence, benefiting from their words, invoking mercy upon them, and giving them the recognition they deserved.

This is very different from a methodology in which one error, disagreement, or allegation becomes an excuse to erase a scholar altogether.

So whose methodology are they really following?

The question therefore becomes unavoidable: when the Haddaadiyyah disparage Abu Haneefah, al-Baaqillaani, al-Bayhaqi, an-Nawawi, ibnul-Jawzi and others in ways that the very scholars they claim to follow did not, whose methodology are they actually following?

Ibnul-Qayyim could disagree, refute, correct, and warn against mistakes, yet he could still say "imam Abu Haneefah", "shaykh Muhyi ad-Deen an-Nawawi", describe al-Baaqillaani as "the leader of the horsemen", praise the work of al-Bayhaqi as something "no scholar can do without", and say concerning ibnul-Jawzi, "How excellent is what he said."

This is scholarship with justice.

It is not the methodology of stripping every scholar of his rank because of an error, nor turning disagreement into an excuse for reckless tabdee' and takfeer.

A warning concerning Abu an-Nouman Bashem

So what does this tell us when we examine the conduct and writings of Abu an-Nouman Bashem?

If someone presents himself as a defender of the Salaf while speaking about these scholars in a manner contrary to how the imams themselves spoke about them, then he is not someone to be taken from or trusted in matters of knowledge.

Do not allow pleasing speech, apparent concern, storytelling, or a cloak of "knowledge" to deceive you. Where falsehood, distortion, unjust disparagement of the scholars, and the misguidance of the Haddaadiyyah have been established, then warn against it clearly, keep away from it, and do not take knowledge from those who call towards it.

Respect is not earned through self-presentation, eloquence, or an appearance of concern. It is earned through knowledge, truthfulness, justice, and adherence to the scholars.

What's his viewpoint?

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

This is a follow-up to:

• Exposing Wild_Extra_Dip's Betrayal of the Salaf, False Takfeer, and Deception Against the Hanafi Madhhab | Part 5

---

The Haddaadiyyah's taqiyyah and exploitation of the youth

Again, the Haddaadiyyah are known for their taqiyyah, to such a degree that they take advantage of the youth, especially those who do not understand the Arabic language. This itself is a testament to the Haddaadiyyah exploiting the ignorance of the youth.

They present citations from scholars of hadith, or from the early scholars in general, as though anyone who deviates is necessarily a disbeliever. Although they do not openly refer to themselves as "Ahlus-Sunnah", and there is ambiguity regarding how they even identify themselves, they may at times appeal to the youth by saying that they are "Sunnis". However, it only goes to that extent.

Since they have no foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, you will never come to learn from them what it actually means to be Sunni. Nonetheless, the Haddaadiyyah believe that anyone who deviates becomes a disbeliever. Again, as proven earlier, this is them following Mu'tazili doctrine without even realizing it.

Following a Mu'tazili premise without realizing it

Consider how a leading figure from among the misguided Mu'tazilah, al-Qaadhi 'Abdul-Jabbaar, defined Tawheed according to the terminology of the Mutakallimeen:

>"It is the knowledge that Allah, Exalted is He, is One, with no partner sharing with Him what He deserves in attributes, both in negation and affirmation, and acknowledging this. Both conditions, knowledge and acknowledgment, must be considered together; for if one knows but does not acknowledge, or acknowledges without knowing, he is not a monotheist."

(Source)

The Haddaadiyyah have therefore been shouting every day that the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, and other misguided sects were all disbelieving apostates. Yet, when you open a book of history, the evidence shows otherwise.

This is the taqiyyah they conceal from you. They deprive you of this knowledge in order to rob you of the historical facts. They make false arguments such as, "A scholar is not followed if he does not conform to the Salaf", along with other strange and unfounded arguments that were never uttered before except by them.

Their contradictory attitude towards scholarship

The result is that they argue that you are not permitted to do taqleed of a scholar. This again is them echoing the Mu'tazilah doctrine:

>The Mu'tazilah of Baghdad held that it is not permissible for the practitioner to perform taqleed of the mujtahid in the branches of the Shari'ah; rather, he is required to investigate and seek evidence. For this reason, they said: "He may not follow his opinion except after his proof has been clarified to him."

(Source)

They speak as though there are no scholars today, and as though there were never any scholars for approximately 1,200 years, but that scholarship existed only during the time of the Salaf.

This is the impression you will inevitably receive from them. Otherwise, you will be left with conflicting messages. They invoke Allah's name while cursing imam Abu Haneefah, his madhhab, and the Hanafi scholars, yet they also cite scholars who warned against such behavior.

Again, this is merely an attempt to appeal to the youth by giving the impression that they "respect the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah", or, as they say, the "Salafi scholars". Yet they take from those scholars whatever suits them and leave whatever contradicts them.

Who does this contradictory behavior remind you of?

It resembles how the Raafidhah behave. They cite from Saheeh al-Bukhaari, yet they disparage, curse, and declare some of the Sahaabah to be disbelievers. The Haddaadiyyah, on the other hand, cite from our sources of Ahlus-Sunnah, yet they disparage, curse, and declare some of the imams of Ahlus-Sunnah, such as imam Abu Haneefah, to be disbelievers.

Truth be told, they have also begun to disparage, curse, and declare some of the scholars of hadith to be disbelievers.

The propaganda surrounding imam Abu Haneefah

We have proven time and again that imam Abu Haneefah was never declared an apostate twice, despite the Haddaadiyyah loving to use this claim as a form of disparagement.

Had this propaganda been true, the Haddaadiyyah would have been able to produce clear evidence that scholars and judicial authorities formally judged imam Abu Haneefah to be an apostate. Instead, the reports they invoke concern the Khawaarij demanding that he repent from the disbelief they themselves had falsely attributed to him.

Al-Faqeeh al-Muhaqqiq 'Ali ibn Muhammad al-Qaari said in Manaaqib al-Imaam, may Allah be pleased with him:

>Abu al-Fadl al-Karmaani said:

>When the Khawaarij entered Kufah with ad-Dahhaak, their doctrine being that everyone who commits a sin is a disbeliever, and that anyone who does not declare the sinner a disbeliever is also a disbeliever, it was said to them, "This man is the shaykh of these people."

>They seized imam Abu Haneefah, may Allah be pleased with him, and said to him, "Repent from disbelief."

>He replied, "I repent from every form of disbelief."

>It was then said to them, "He has repented from your disbelief."

>So they seized him again. He said to them, "Did you say this based on knowledge or conjecture?"

>They replied, "Based on conjecture."

>He said, "Indeed, some conjecture is sin, and sin is a transgression, so repent from disbelief."

>They said, "You too must repent from disbelief."

>He replied, "I repent from every form of disbelief."

>This is the basis for what the people of misguidance say, namely that imam Abu Haneefah was asked to repent from disbelief twice. In doing so, they deceived the common people.

End quote.

The Haddaadiyyah are therefore guilty of repeating the extremism of the Khawaarij. At the same time, they want to portray their statements as though they conform to the scholars of hadith. Yet they neglect, and conveniently fail, to mention imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310 H), who regarded imam Abu Haneefah and the Hanafi scholars as among the foremost and trustworthy imams.

Imam ibn Jareer was not only a scholar of hadith, but also a scholar of history and a scholar of the statements of the Salaf. Otherwise, how could he be regarded as the imam of the mufassireen, having authored one of the earliest complete tafseers of the Qur'an upon which we all rely?

No, the Haddaadiyyah want to disparage the madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah, but why are they also silent about some of the Hanbalis who threw rocks at imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari? They have no explanation for this.

We know the context of this incident, as explained by imam ibn Katheer in his biography of imam ibn Jareer. The Hanbalis in this context were ignorant laypeople who were blindly partisan towards the madhhab of imam Ahmad. This is why I have always said that blind partisanship is blameworthy, regardless of one's affiliation, whether Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafi'ee, or Hanbali.

For the Haddaadiyyah to present the matter as though only the Hanafis have blind partisanship is a great deception.

The contradiction exposed by Islamic history

Speaking of history, the Haddaadiyyah spread this propaganda as though all the misguided sects were disbelievers. Yet, if their arguments were truly as grave as they make them out to be, why did the Muslim authorities of the time, especially within the judicial system of the Shari'ah, not execute each and every misguided person?

If they were not executed, were the Salaf merely speaking without acting upon their knowledge? Were they all complacent regarding kufr and shirk, despite these matters supposedly being so severe that the Haddaadiyyah have made them their slogan and almost the only topic with which they concern themselves?

No. In reality, as has been said, people have been deceived by their taqiyyah. It is deception and manipulation akin to Stockholm syndrome. They mistreat Muslims through misinformation and disinformation, fooling them despite the fact that they themselves are victims. Eventually, the unfortunate youth begin to develop an affection for, or blind loyalty towards, the lies of the Haddaadiyyah. They then defend those lies and attack anyone who exposes or dispels them.

There is a difference between the extremists among the misguided sects, particularly those regarded as their leading figures, and those within these sects who merely repeat their deviations.

When the leading figures of misguidance have first had the evidence established against them by a scholar, yet they persist in their grave misinterpretations or false interpretations that lead them to deny some of the Lofty Attributes of Allah, it is only then that the principles of takfeer may be applied to them individually. Takfeer is not to be declared indiscriminately against an entire sect, as we have already proven through what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah clarified.

Hence, ibn Taymiyyah said:

>Likewise, regarding the remaining seventy-two sects: whoever among them is a hypocrite is inwardly a disbeliever. As for the one who is not a hypocrite, but inwardly believes in Allah and His Messenger, he is not inwardly a disbeliever, even if he errs in his interpretation, regardless of the extent of his error. Some of them may possess a branch of hypocrisy without possessing the hypocrisy that causes its adherent to be in the lowest depths of the Fire.

>Whoever says that every one of the seventy-two sects has committed disbelief that removes them from the religion has contradicted the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the consensus of all the Sahaabah, as well as the consensus of the four imams and other scholars.

>None of them declared every one of the seventy-two sects to be disbelievers. Rather, they declared some of them to be disbelievers on account of certain statements or doctrines, as has been explained in detail elsewhere.

(Source)

Is ibn Taymiyyah lying against Allah, or is the Haddaadiyyah sect lying?

Yet, if the Haddaadiyyah claim that ibn Taymiyyah is misleading the Ummah, then who is actually in conformity with the Haddaadiyyah in describing ibn Taymiyyah with such lowliness?

You will find no one.

The Haddaadiyyah might argue, "But ibn Taymiyyah did not explicitly mention the Jahmiyyah as being among the seventy-two sects, therefore your argument is false."

Rather, ibn Taymiyyah was very specific elsewhere when discussing the scholarly disagreement concerning this matter. He mentioned that some scholars regarded the Jahmiyyah as disbelievers and therefore did not include them among the seventy-two sects, while others held that the Jahmiyyah were indeed included among them.

However, ibn Taymiyyah did not apply the ruling of disbelief indiscriminately to everyone affiliated with the Jahmiyyah. He clarified that the statements transmitted from the Salaf concerning their disbelief referred to the pure Jahmiyyah, whose doctrines entailed the complete negation of Allah's Lofty Attributes.

He then distinguished the leading heretics and those firmly established upon such doctrines from people who became affiliated with, influenced by, or confused by their teachings through ignorance, injustice, or mistaken interpretation. Such people are not immediately regarded as disbelieving heretics merely because they have fallen into a Jahmi innovation.

Hence, ibn Taymiyyah said:

>Among the people of religious innovation, however, are those who possess faith both inwardly and outwardly, but who also possess ignorance and injustice through which they err concerning the Sunnah. Such a person is neither a disbeliever nor a hypocrite.

>He may nevertheless possess aggression and injustice by which he becomes defiantly disobedient or sinful. He may instead be mistaken while exercising interpretation, with his error being forgiven. Alongside this, he may possess such faith and taqwa that he has a share of the friendship of Allah in proportion to his faith and taqwa.

>This is the first principle.

>The second principle is that a statement may itself constitute disbelief, such as denying the obligation of prayer, zakah, fasting, or Hajj, or declaring lawful fornication, wine, gambling, or marriage to one's close unmarriageable relatives.

>Nevertheless, the person making such a statement may not have received the revealed message. In such a case, the one who denies it is not declared a disbeliever because of it. This applies, for example, to someone who has only recently embraced Islam, or someone raised in a remote desert region whom the laws of Islam did not reach.

>Such a person is not judged to be a disbeliever for denying something revealed to the Messenger when he did not know that it had been revealed to the Messenger.

>The doctrines of the Jahmiyyah belong to this category, for they deny what the Lord, Exalted is He, is truly described with and what Allah revealed to His Messenger.

>The severity of their doctrines is demonstrated from three perspectives.

>The first is that the texts in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the consensus that contradict their doctrine are extremely numerous and well known. They reject these texts only through distortion.

>The second is that the reality of their doctrine is the negation of the Creator, even though some of them may not realize that their doctrine necessarily entails the negation of the Creator. Just as the foundation of faith is the acknowledgment of Allah, the foundation of disbelief is the denial of Allah.

>The third is that they contradict what all religious communities and all people of sound natural disposition have agreed upon.

>Despite this, many of their doctrines may remain unclear to many believers. Such believers may come to believe that the truth is with them because of the doubts and specious arguments they present.

>Those believers may genuinely believe in Allah and His Messenger, inwardly and outwardly. The matter merely became confused and unclear to them, just as matters became unclear to other categories of religious innovators.

>Such people are certainly not disbelievers. Some of them may be defiantly disobedient or sinful, while others may be mistaken and forgiven. They may also possess such faith and taqwa that they have a share of the friendship of Allah in proportion to their faith and taqwa.

>The fundamental position of Ahlus-Sunnah, by which they differ from the Khawaarij, the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, and the Murji'ah, is that faith varies in degree and consists of divisible parts.

>The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever has even the smallest particle of faith in his heart will be brought out of the Fire."

>Accordingly, the friendship of Allah also varies in degree and consists of divisible parts in accordance with this.

(Source)

Where is the historical and juristic evidence?

There are historical reports of particular leading figures and adherents of misguided sects being punished, and some were individually declared disbelievers because of specific doctrines. However, this does not establish that the scholars and Muslim judicial authorities treated every person affiliated with those sects as an apostate merely because of his affiliation or because he repeated one of their doctrines.

The issue here is not whether certain leading figures of misguidance were individually declared disbelievers by the scholars after the relevant conditions were fulfilled. Nor is the point to deny that words of disbelief are vile and grave. The issue is whether every person affiliated with these sects, or anyone who merely repeats such statements, is to be treated unrestrictedly as a disbelieving apostate.

If the Haddaadiyyah's sweeping approach were correct, where is the historical evidence that the scholars and Muslim judicial authorities treated everyone affiliated with these misguided sects as apostates merely because of their affiliation or because they repeated one of their doctrines?

The historical record does not demonstrate that takfeer was applied indiscriminately to every person who uttered such statements. Rather, the historical and juristic record demonstrates distinctions between the doctrine itself, its leading proponents, and individuals who fell into it through ignorance, confusion, or mistaken interpretation.

Had indiscriminate takfeer been the established ruling, the historical record would have provided the Haddaadiyyah with one of their strongest arguments. Instead, because they adhere to arguments resembling those of the Dhaahiriyyah by treating tamadhhub and taqleed as a catastrophe upon the Ummah, they remain ignorant of both history and fiqh.

• https://student.faith/insights/010.html

The books of fiqh say otherwise

These are only a few among countless other proofs from the Shari'ah concerning the excuse of ignorance in matters of shirk and grave misinterpretation. Even clearer is what is discussed in the books of fiqh, which yet again demonstrates the ignorance of anyone who argues as though there is no excuse for ignorance.

In the chapters dealing with apostasy, the jurists explain that when a person says or does something that outwardly constitutes disbelief, the qualified judicial authorities do not immediately apply the legal ruling of apostasy. Rather, the person's circumstances are examined, the matter is explained to him, and any possible misunderstanding, ignorance, or mistaken interpretation is addressed.

If it is established that his statement or action arose from an excusable misunderstanding or interpretive error, and he acknowledges his mistake after clarification, he is not treated as an apostate and the punishment prescribed for apostasy is not applied. This does not necessarily remove any separate legal consequence that may attach to the underlying act itself. (Source)

Divorcing people from the reality of the scholars

If this is the reality established in the books of fiqh, then the Haddaadiyyah want to erase the books of history and the books of fiqh. Rather, they want to divorce you from historical reality, from the principles of the Shari'ah, and from the explanations of the scholars themselves.

Relevant:

• https://student.faith/articles/haddaadiyyah.html

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

This is a follow-up to:

• Exposing Wild_Extra_Dip's Betrayal of the Salaf, False Takfeer, and Deception Against the Hanafi Madhhab | Part 4

---

The Haddaadiyyah's Distortion of the Sources

The Haddaadiyyah treat the individual statements of the Taabi'een and Atbaa' at-Taabi'een as though they were definitive and independently authoritative proofs. This directly contradicts what the fuqahaa' of Ahlus-Sunnah explained concerning the sources of the Shari'ah and the evidentiary status of such statements.

This is the deception behind their attempt to portray hatred of imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab as a religious obligation, as though Allah had revealed that they must be cursed and avoided. Even more revealing is their reliance upon scholars who came after the Salaf, whose individual statements they present as though they were definitive revelation.

Before going further, who does this remind us of? The Raafidhah have made hatred of some of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) into a religious obligation. This is why they curse them, declare that they are definitively in Hell, and perpetuate other concocted false narratives concerning them.

Any serious student who has studied usool al-fiqh will recognize this distinction. The Haddaadiyyah conceal it because their conclusions cannot be sustained once the proper hierarchy and evidentiary status of the sources are explained.

As when we say the Salaf, who are we even referring to?

1. The Sahaabah
2. The Taabi'een
3. The Atbaa' at-Taabi'een

This is based on the hadith: "The best people are my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them."

Scholars explained that when "the Salaf" is used without qualification, it ordinarily means these three praised generations. Someone who came later may follow their methodology, but he is not chronologically a member of those generations. (Source)

This means, in reality, that those whom they claim to be "the Salaf" are actually from the Khalaf, namely later scholars of hadith.

• 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal was born in 213 AH and died in 290 AH.
• Al-Bukhaari died in 256 AH.
• Muslim died in 261 AH.
• Abu Dawud was born in 202 AH and died in 275 AH.
• At-Tirmidhi died in 279 AH.
• An-Nasaa'i died in 303 AH.
• Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazi died in 264 AH.
• Abu Haatim ar-Raazi was born in 195 AH and died in 277 AH.
• Ibn Abi Haatim was born in 240 AH and died in 327 AH.

These were great hadith scholars and they were not from the Taabi'een or Atbaa' at-Taabi'een.

The deception, and his attempt to bamboozle his subscribers, lies in making it sound as though merely mentioning the names of hadith scholars somehow proves that imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab were disbelievers, deserved Allah's curse, and were going to Hell.

Therefore, they transform technical criticisms into something entirely different from what these scholars of hadith ever intended. This again shows how deceptive he is in using such names.

He will never reconcile the statements of those who praised imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab with the technical and constructive scholarly criticism found in the science of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, except by concocting lies.

They have even lied about what the science of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel is about. Any beginner student who has studied this science will affirm that what the Haddaadiyyah have selectively presented in their disparagement of imam Abu Haneefah has been presented through deception and manipulation.

• https://student.faith/insights/010.html#misuse-jarh-tadeel

Again, anyone, even a kaafir, can cite from our Islamic sources in an attempt to cast aspersions against Islam. The mere ability to cite something is not a testament to understanding.

A beginner student may encounter basic definitions and terminology that may resemble what is discussed in al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel while studying Mustalah al-Hadith, but independently evaluating narrators, reconciling conflicting criticisms, and applying the rules of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel belong to a considerably later stage.

Al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel is therefore not normally approached as an isolated introductory subject detached from the broader sciences of hadith.

Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr gives a particularly clear progression:

>As for studying this discipline, he begins with this text [al-Bayqooniyyah] because it can be completed quickly, then proceeds to an-Nukhbah, followed by ibn Katheer's Ikhtisaar 'Uloom al-Hadith, and then the Alfiyyah together with its commentaries.

(Source)

Elsewhere, shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem said:

>The student of knowledge in Mustalah al-Hadith and al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel must follow the established path. He should begin with concise introductory texts and then gradually advance to larger works, as we have explained on many occasions.

>He begins with an-Nukhbah, followed by ibn Katheer's Ikhtisaar 'Uloom al-Hadith, and then the Alfiyyah together with its commentaries. After that, he reads other books that help him understand the technical expressions transmitted from the earlier scholars, such as Sharh 'Ilal at-Tirmidhi and similar works.

>He should also engage extensively in takhreej, collecting the various chains and routes of transmission, and studying the isnaads. Only after that will he gradually develop the necessary qualification.

(Source)

Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr explained that al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel is not a simple science that can be mastered by reading isolated criticisms from books of narrator biographies. Its expressions differ in meaning, strength, context, and application, and some of them are so obscure that even major scholars initially misunderstood them.

He explained that understanding these expressions requires extensive practice, continuous examination, comparison between the statements of the critics, knowledge of their individual terminology, and careful study of what they said concerning the same narrator. A beginning or intermediate student may be unable to understand what a critic intended without examining the surrounding evidence and the judgments of other scholars.

Even collecting, classifying, and arranging the expressions of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel requires a highly skilled scholar, not merely an ordinary reader. The science therefore demands prolonged study, familiarity with the books of narrators and history, knowledge of the ranks of criticism and accreditation, and the ability to distinguish linguistic meanings from specialized technical usage. (Source)

This renders Bashem's following statement self-defeating. He presents conclusions drawn from one of the most specialized and difficult branches of hadith criticism as though they were "basic facts" discoverable through "pure logic", while admitting that he omitted the very references needed to establish them. In doing so, he openly replaces scholarly qualification, verification, and the principles of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel with his own unsupported assumptions:

>"Some things weren't referenced to cut the time of writing short, and also because they're very basic facts that anyone can figure from pure logic, not just the Islamic sciences' beginner books"

(Source)

Bashem's claim that he studied under shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr is therefore false and misleading. At most, he studied some of the shaykh's materials online, not directly under him. More importantly, Bashem has opposed and contradicted the very methodology, principles, and warnings that shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem explicitly taught concerning Mustalah al-Hadith and al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel.

Bashem spends considerable time attacking imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab. Yet this completely contradicts what shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr explicitly explained:

>The questioner says: "I heard one of the contemporary hadith scholars say that whenever imam al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy upon him) uses the expression, 'Some people said,' in his Saheeh, he intends imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy upon him). Is this correct?"

>Many commentators have said this, and one of the hadith scholars from India even authored a treatise on the subject. The treatise is published and widely circulated. It is called Izaalat al-Waswaas. I have not studied it, as it has been a very long time since I last dealt with it.

>When al-Bukhaari says, "Some people said," you will often find that the view mentioned corresponds to the position of Abu Haneefah. At other times, however, it differs from his position. Yes, the issues vary. The point is that this is not an absolute and consistent rule, although it occurs frequently.

>Yes, I say that it is not an absolute rule, although many of the instances in which al-Bukhaari says, "Some people said," correspond to the position of Abu Haneefah.

>Nevertheless, Abu Haneefah was an imam. Although his attention to transmitted reports was less than that of some other imams, you know that imam al-Bukhaari possessed a jurisprudence grounded in transmitted reports. Abu Haneefah, his followers, and his Kufan school were called Ahlur-Ra'y, in contrast to Ahlul-Hadith.

>In any case, there is good in both, although Ahlul-Athar represent the foundation, their approach is stronger, and they are primarily relied upon in deriving and substantiating rulings. The other schools may also be benefited from. Whatever in them contradicts the evidence is not given consideration or relied upon, while whatever agrees with the evidence is accepted.

>Imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy upon him) is called al-Imam al-A'zam. He is not someone whose standing is discarded. Although his attention to transmitted reports was less than that of other imams, and he generally relied upon ra'y, he has a Musnad.

>Some say that Abu Haneefah narrated only seventeen hadiths, while others state that he has a Musnad containing nearly three hundred hadiths.

>In any case, one of these imams may excel in one discipline while being weaker in another. If Abu Haneefah excelled in ra'y, transmitted reports, deduction, and developing subsidiary legal issues from which the student of knowledge benefits, while being weaker in another field, this does not mean that he is to be marginalized, that he has no value, or that no benefit can be taken from him.

>Consider 'Aasim ibn Abi an-Najood, the renowned reciter whose recitation has been relied upon throughout many Muslim lands across the centuries. Regarding his hadith transmission, they said that he had a poor memory, just as was said concerning Abu Haneefah.

>Likewise, Muhammad ibn Ishaaq was an imam in the field of maghaazi, yet his memory was criticized, although some scholars interpreted his narrations as falling within the category of hasan.

(Source)

Shaykh Waleed ibn Raashid as-Sa'eedaan is another scholar whom Bashem claims to have studied under, although, once again, this appears to mean only that he accessed the shaykh's materials online rather than studying directly under him. More importantly, Bashem's attacks against imam Abu Haneefah directly contradict the favorable and explicit statements of the very scholar he presents as one of his teachers.

Shaykh Waleed ibn Raashid as-Sa'eedaan said:

>"The same applies to imam Maalik and Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon them, imam Sufyaan, al-Hasan, Sa'eed, ibn Taymiyyah, ibn al-Qayyim, ibn Katheer, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab, and other imams. When we venerate these people, we venerate them because of the sound beliefs contained in their hearts, what they taught and imparted to the Ummah, and the works they authored in conformity with the Qur'an and Sunnah upon the guidance of the righteous predecessors."

The relevant passage begins around [2:20]. He is not merely recognizing Abu Haneefah as a jurist; he includes him among the imams whom Muslims respect because of their sound beliefs and service to the Qur'an and Sunnah.

In his explanation of Lum'at al-I'tiqaad, as-Sa'eedaan also approvingly quotes Abu Haneefah concerning Allah's Attributes:

>"Abu Haneefah said: No one should speak about the Essence of Allah from himself. Rather, he should describe Him with that by which He described Himself."

As-Sa'eedaan presents this within his explanation of the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah regarding Allah's Names and Attributes. (Source)

Shaykh Saalih ibn 'Abdillah al-'Usaymi is yet another scholar whom Bashem claims to have studied under, although this, too, appears to refer only to studying his publicly available online materials rather than sitting with him directly. Yet Bashem's portrayal of imam Abu Haneefah and the Hanafi madhhab stands in direct opposition to what al-'Usaymi himself explicitly teaches.

Al-'Usaymi refers to Abu Haneefah as one of the four followed imams. In his own work, al-Masaa'il al-Arba'een 'an al-A'immah al-Arba'ah al-Muttaba'een, he describes the four imams as:

>"They are among the leading masters of the jurists and the foremost authorities followed as examples."

He later repeats:

>"The four imams, may Allah have mercy upon them, are counted among the leading jurists of this Ummah and the foremost authorities followed as examples."

Abu Haneefah is explicitly one of the four imams under discussion. (Source)

Al-'Usaymi further explains the historical basis of the Hanafi madhhab:

>"As previously stated, the madhhab of Abu Haneefah is a vessel in which the jurisprudence of ibn Mas'ood and his Kufan companions was preserved, followed by the jurisprudence of the scholars of Kufah who came after them, such as Ibraaheem an-Nakha'i, and then those after him, such as Sufyaan ath-Thawri and other Kufan jurists."

He adds:

>اطلاعك على مذاهب الأئمة الأربعة مآله الاطلاع على مذاهب الصحابة والتابعين وأتباع التابعين.

>"Studying the madhhabs of the four imams ultimately amounts to studying the positions of the Sahaabah, the Taabi'een, and the Atbaa' at-Taabi'een."

(Source)

Al-'Usaymi even advises students living in predominantly Hanafi lands:

>فإذا كان أهل بلده حنفية، فإن الأنفع له أن يتفقه على مذهب أبي حنيفة

>"When the people of his country are Hanafis, it is more beneficial for him to study jurisprudence according to the madhhab of Abu Haneefah."

He explains that studying an established local madhhab gives the student access to qualified teachers and a properly transmitted juristic tradition. (Source)

Bashem therefore invokes these scholars as though they support his understanding, while deliberately withholding the very statements that directly contradict his attacks against imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab. This is not a minor omission. It is a selective presentation designed to conceal context, manufacture scholarly support, and mislead his audience into believing that his extremism has scholarly precedence when the scholars he names explicitly undermine it.

Beyond Bashem's false inferences, in which he transforms technical criticism from the scholars of hadith into conclusions they never intended, despite the distinctions explained by shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr and others, there is yet another glaring omission.

When citing Harb al-Kirmaani, Bashem conceals the muhaqqiq's corrective footnote, just as he previously omitted the important commentary of the great scholar 'Abdurrahman al-Mu'allami. He quotes the harsh wording, but withholds the very scholarly qualification that prevents his desired conclusion. The muhaqqiq states:

>"It is not to be said concerning Abu Haneefah that he was among the imams of misguidance and the heads of innovation."

He explains that Abu Haneefah was a mujtahid imam whose creed agreed with Ahlus-Sunnah in most matters. Any errors attributed to him resulted from ijtihaad or evidence not reaching him, not from an intention to harm the religion as occurred with Bishr al-Mareesi. The muhaqqiq further observes that the harsh clause is absent from the versions quoted by ibn al-Qayyim and ibn Abi Ya'la, which he takes as an indication that they did not approve of what was said about Abu Haneefah. (Source)

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah similarly said:

>"Whoever supposes that Abu Haneefah, or any other imam of the Muslims, deliberately contradicted an authentic hadith because of analogy or something else has erred concerning them and has spoken either through conjecture or desire."

He explains that Abu Haneefah sometimes departed from analogy precisely because he believed a particular hadith to be authentic, even where other hadith authorities considered it weak. (Source)

Bashem cites from the same work whose muhaqqiq examined as-Sijzi’s madhhab affiliation. However, while the muhaqqiq merely expressed doubt that as-Sijzi was Hanafi, Bashem transformed that cautious scholarly judgement into an unsupported accusation of deliberate lying. He also inserted his own description of the cited imams as “Abu Haneefah’s enemies,” wording that does not appear in as-Sijzi’s text:

>In this book, we observe his strong sympathy toward the Hanbalis and their shaykhs, his defense of them, and his great admiration for imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy upon him). He acknowledged imam Ahmad's leadership and precedence in fiqh and the Sunnah, saying concerning him:

>"Allah, Glorified is He, supported Abu 'Abdillah Ahmad ibn Hanbal ash-Shaybaani (may Allah have mercy upon him) through His favor, until he rose to revive and manifest the original methodology. He was a comprehensive scholar who had already advanced in fiqh. He first examined the madhhab of Abu Haneefah and Sufyaan, then examined the madhhab of ash-Shaafi'ee, and selected for himself what he found established in hadith. He excelled in his knowledge of it, was extremely pious, and firmly adhered to the transmitted teachings of the Salaf."

>Nevertheless, his sympathy toward imam Ahmad, his praise of him, and his defense of the Hanbalis and their shaykhs do not warrant saying that he himself was a Hanbali. His reason for doing so may simply have been the firm adherence of imam Ahmad and his companions to the Sunnah, and their steadfastness upon it during the Mihnah.

>Among the matters that at least cause us to doubt that he was Hanafi is that we find him lacking knowledge of the madhhab of Abu Haneefah. When he needed to determine the actual position of Abu Haneefah concerning the permissibility of reciting al-Faatihah in Persian, he went and asked Abu Ja'far an-Nasafi and Abu Muhammad an-Naasihi about it.

>Had he been Hanafi, he would have possessed knowledge of the madhhab, especially regarding an issue whose clarification mattered to him.

>It cannot be argued that adhering to a madhhab does not necessarily require a person to possess detailed knowledge of it. We respond that this may be true of a layperson, but someone such as Abu Nasr, who possessed knowledge, understanding, and fiqh, would reasonably be expected, had he been Hanafi, to be among the scholars of that madhhab.

>Allah Most High knows best.

(Source)

Bashem again fails to explain the nature of the source he is citing. Tahdheeb al-Kamaal is a work of 'Ilm ar-Rijaal, a branch of the hadith sciences concerned with identifying narrators, their teachers and students, their dates and places, and the statements of the hadith critics concerning them.

Just as Bashem deceptively reduced al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel to copying isolated criticisms, he now presents material from a biographical work as though merely citing it establishes his conclusions against imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab. In reality, these works provide the material that qualified scholars examine, compare, and assess according to the principles of Mustalah al-Hadith and al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel.

Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr explains that a researcher should return to the books of rijaal, gather everything stated about a narrator in terms of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, present the statements of those who accredited him and those who criticized him, and only then weigh the evidence according to the recognized principles. He explains that Tahdheeb al-Kamaal and its derivative works may be consulted, but as supplementary rather than exclusive sources. (Source)

Bashem instead treats the material collected in these works as though it were already a final scholarly judgment supporting takfeer, disparagement, and the complete avoidance of imam Abu Haneefah, his madhhab, and Hanafi scholars. He also treats individual statements of the Atbaa' at-Taabi'een as though they were independently authoritative proofs among the sources of the Shari'ah, despite what was explained earlier concerning their evidentiary status.

This failure to distinguish between transmitted material, technical criticism, and a final scholarly judgment is either deliberate omission or complete ignorance. It is also why Bashem cannot reconcile the criticisms transmitted concerning imam Abu Haneefah with the praise of scholars who recognized his standing and that of his madhhab. Knowledge was preserved generation after generation, and scholars continued to regard him as one of the great fuqahaa'. Imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari himself included imam Abu Haneefah among the leading jurists in his work. (Source)

Bashem's Statements Against Allah, His Prophets, and the Deen

The Minnesotan American-Egyptian, Abu an-Nouman Bashem (Wild_Extra_Dip), not only lies against the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, but also against the Deen of Allah. Remember that, by Bashem's own standard, he is, in reality, conspiring against the Deen of Allah. And how were those who conspired against the Deen described?

"Whoever conspires against the religion is not an adherent of the religion."

Rather, we have previously established that anyone who belittles the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), even by affirming such belittlement, has apostatized. (Source) This should be even more evident regarding anyone who conspires against the Deen of Allah.

Again, shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd described those who disparage the imams as doing the work of Iblees:

>"And with this, you come to know that the accursed initiative of declaring the imams, such as an-Nawawi, ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed, and ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani, as disbelievers, or belittling their status, or labeling them as misguided innovators, all of this is the work of Shaytan. It is a gateway to misguidance and leading others astray, as well as corruption and spreading corruption. If the witnesses of the Shari'ah are discredited, then what they testify to is also discredited. However, the ignorant and reckless do not comprehend, nor do they verify."

(Source)

Rather, this exactly fits the description of the munaafiqeen. (Source)

This is similar to how Rabee' al-Madkhali was described. Shaykh 'Abdul-Qaadir Shaybah al-Hamd said: "Rabee' al-Madkhali is a liar, a corrupt man, waging war against the Deen of Allah." (Source)

This should shock and disturb everyone. Bashem himself posed the following rhetorical question and affirmed its premise:

>"Is Yusuf ibn Yaqoub peace be upon them a kaffir for ruling with Sharia as an accomplice of a kaffir?

>(He promoted his governance directly)"

(Source)

In the discussion that followed, Bashem replied to another person:

>"He worked under a taghut and promoted his government indefinitely more than a Muslim going to a liberal court, you do not have a logic behind any of your statements and are too excited with the whole تحاكم thing and about separating truth from falsehood that you speak such falsehood"

(Source)

If this is true, then Bashem is not only an apostate due to his belittlement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), but also a zindeeq, a disbelieving heretic who promotes disbelief. He therefore fits the description of an enemy of Islam, as he lies about Allah and His prophets.

Not only does Bashem say that the repentance of anyone who repents to Allah would never be accepted; in doing so, he has gone so far astray that he inadvertently claims to speak on behalf of Allah, as though he were receiving revelation that imam al-Ghazali's repentance was not accepted by Allah. (Source)

In Adwaa' al-Bayaan, shaykh ash-Shinqeeti explicitly states:

>وكذلك أبو حامد الغزالي، كان في زمانه من أعظم القائلين بالتأويل، ثم رجع عن ذلك، وبين أن الحق الذي لا شك فيه هو مذهب السلف

>"Likewise, Abu Haamid al-Ghazali was, during his time, among the greatest proponents of ta'weel. Then he returned from that and explained that the truth concerning which there is no doubt is the methodology of the Salaf."

Ash-Shinqeeti then cites al-Ghazali's own late work, Iljaam al-'Awaam 'an 'Ilm al-Kalaam, as evidence of this return. (Source)

Ibn Taymiyyah states plainly in Majmoo' al-Fataawa:

>"Although after that, he returned to the way of Ahlul-Hadith and authored Restraining the Common People from the Science of Kalaam."

(Source)

In Iljaam al-'Awaam 'an 'Ilm al-Kalaam, al-Ghazali himself writes:

>"Know that the manifest truth concerning which there is no dispute among people of insight is the methodology of the Salaf, by whom I mean the Sahaabah and the Taabi'een."

The structure of the book itself includes a chapter entitled:

>"Establishing the proof that the truth is the methodology of the Salaf."

Bashem does not only opposes Ahlus-Sunnah principles but also Allah Himself. Scholars explained:

>Swearing concerning a specific person that he will be called to account for a particular deed is regarded as speaking about Allah without knowledge. This is because there is no specific text concerning that person or that particular sin. He may later repent, whereupon Allah may accept his repentance and forgive him, and Allah may pardon him even if he does not repent. Every sin short of disbelief is subject to Allah's will: if He wills, He forgives the person who committed it, and if He wills, He holds him accountable for it.

>Abu Hurayrah reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say:

>"There were two men among the Banu Israa'eel who were like brothers. One of them used to commit sins, while the other was diligent in worship. The diligent worshipper would continually see the other committing sins and would say, 'Stop.' One day, he found him committing a sin and said to him, 'Stop.' The man replied, 'Leave me to my Lord. Have you been sent as a watcher over me?' He said, 'By Allah, Allah will not forgive you,' or, 'Allah will not admit you into Paradise.'

>Their souls were then taken, and they were brought together before the Lord of the worlds. He said to the diligent worshipper, 'Did you possess knowledge of Me, or did you have power over what is in My Hand?' He then said to the sinner, 'Go and enter Paradise through My mercy,' and regarding the other, He said, 'Take him to the Fire.'"

>Abu Hurayrah said: "By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, he uttered a single statement that ruined both his worldly life and his Hereafter." It was narrated by Abu Dawud, Ahmad, and ibn Hibbaan, and authenticated by Ahmad Shaakir and al-Albani.

>Jundub reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) related that a man said: "By Allah, Allah will not forgive so-and-so." Allah Most High then said: "Who is it that swears concerning Me that I will not forgive so-and-so? Indeed, I have forgiven so-and-so and nullified your deeds." It was narrated by Muslim.

>An-Nawawi said: "The meaning of 'يتألى' is 'to swear'. Al-aliyyah means an oath. This contains evidence for the position of Ahlus-Sunnah that sins may be forgiven without repentance if Allah wills to forgive them." End quote.

(Source)

Relevant:

• https://dorar.net/hadith/sharh/152286

Conveying Knowledge From the Scholars

What I have conveyed is in conformity with what the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have said. This is why I cite numerous sources and do not present myself as though I possess some great independent knowledge.

I put forward what the scholars have explained, not myself. This is why the Haddaadiyyah attempt to undermine my identity, even though the knowledge I share does not depend upon who I am. When I am gone, the scholars and their works will remain, while the falsehoods spread by the Haddaadiyyah will continue to be refuted and exposed.

Even beginner students will eventually realize that they were misled. I have already received messages from youths thanking me for showing them what the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah actually said.

Some who left Bashem's Discord circle were then threatened or subjected to takfeer, being called "lovers of Taaghoot" and the like.

Their Conduct Exposes Their Claims

Yet, despite our refutations against the Haddaadiyyah, we pray that they are guided. This is unlike how they pray against us, invoke Allah to kill us, and have even gone so far as to threaten to dox us.

Despite this, they claim to follow in the footsteps of the Salaf in character. In turn, they assert that this is how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) acted, that their conduct is loved by Allah, and that it is an obligation to behave with such vileness, even to the extent of lying against the Deen of Allah.

Any sincere person can discern what we and others have conveyed, including the justice, the context, and the extent to which the Haddaadiyyah have lied.

---

Continued in:

• Exposing Wild_Extra_Dip's Betrayal of the Salaf, False Takfeer, and Deception Against the Hanafi Madhhab | Part 6

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

This is a follow-up to:

• Exposing Wild_Extra_Dip's Betrayal of the Salaf, False Takfeer, and Deception Against the Hanafi Madhhab | Part 3

---

Is Guidance Confined to the First Generations?

Is guidance confined to the first three and best generations, namely the righteous predecessors? Or does guidance continue and remain until the Day of Judgement?

Rhetorical questions aside, have we not seen misguided people, especially heretics, concoct the false story that hadith literature was invented three hundred years after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? Yet today, we see these people arguing online, claiming that they uphold only the Qur'an while rejecting the science of hadith, by which they mean the Sunnah. They argue by using the Qur'an to reject the Sunnah.

However, do we not see that they have no scholarly precedent? Yet we also see them use hadith to reject hadith, use scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah to reject hadith, and disparage those who uphold the Sunnah.

The Preservation of Hadith

The glaring question remains, and it should reveal the discrepancies in their approach: hadith literature does indeed exist, and hadith was not invented three hundred years later. History itself bears witness to this, as scholars, generation after generation, taught the science of hadith, preserved it, and presented numerous pieces of undisputed evidence that hadith was preserved concurrently with the Qur'an.

Notice another pattern. During the time of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him), with the permission of 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him), went to the Khawaarij to debate them. He pointed out that there were no Sahaabah among the Khawaarij, yet the Khawaarij attempted to argue by using the Qur'an to justify their misguidance. (Source)

The Scholars and Their Knowledge Will Remain

There have been Ahlus-Sunnah wa Ahlul-Hadith generation after generation, carrying this knowledge forward and preserving both creedal and historical understanding.

Just as hadith-rejectors ignorantly and falsely claim that hadith literature was first written three hundred years after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), there is similar ignorance in the Haddaadiyyah sect's disparagement of imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab.

A thousand years passed, and suddenly they wanted to imply and allege that imam Abu Haneefah and the followers of his madhhab were all misguided, deserving of Allah's curse, and were all disbelievers. Yet throughout those thousand years, we did not find the same ugliness, vileness, disparagement, evilness, and satanic behavior.

Orientalists even show more courtesy toward imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab, despite their evil nature as kuffaar, than the Haddaadiyyah sect does.

What the Haddaadiyyah Claim Implies

This sudden, out-of-the-blue desire of the Haddaadiyyah to speak ill of imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab is, in reality, a claim that the scholarship of a thousand years betrayed the Ummah. It is as though all the scholars conspired against the Deen of Allah, that they were all hypocrites who misguided the Ummah away from Allah, until Mahmood al-Haddaad came to save the Ummah from the alleged evilness of imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab.

But countless people have never heard of Mahmood al-Haddaad. You may wonder why. It is because his name became meaningless after the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah during his time swiftly dismantled his misguidance. We have previously proven this through what shaykh Muqbil al-Waadi'ee said about this person and the Haddaadiyyah.

Al-'Allaamah 'Abdurrahman al-Mu'allami (d. 1386 H) said regarding those who stir up such matters against imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy upon him): "What wisdom required was to follow what the people of knowledge had proceeded upon for nearly seven hundred years: drawing the curtain over those matters, exchanging praise..." End quote from at-Tankeel (1/33).

The book itself has a lot of gems, as he also discussed the science of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel. How could it not be great, when this is from one of the greatest recent scholars? He was also called shaykhul-Islam, and shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd said about him: "The Dhahabi of his era, al-'Allaamah al-Muhaqqiq." (Source)

Why Do We Call Ourselves Sunnis?

Again, the crucial question remains: why do we call ourselves Sunnis? This is, again, a shortened term referring to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah:

>In summary, Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are, as scholars explained, "... those who adhere to the Sunnah and who unite upon it, not turning to anything else, whether that be in matters of belief ('aqeedah) or matters of actions which are subject to shar'i rulings. Hence they are called Ahlus-Sunnah because they adhere to it (the Sunnah), and they are called Ahlul-Jamaa'ah because they are united (مجتمعون) in following it.

>If you examine the followers of bid'ah (innovation), you will find that they differ concerning that which they are following, with regard to beliefs, methodology and practices, which indicates that their being far removed from the Sunnah is commensurate with the extent to which they have introduced innovations."

(Source)

Relevant:

• https://student.faith/articles/ahlus-sunnah.html#origin

The Primary Distinction and Obligation

In short, the term Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is what was stated by the Sahaabah, particularly 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him), and this, in turn, is what was established by the Taabi'een and those who followed them in righteousness.

This is the primary distinction and obligation, unlike what other people in this day and age have attempted to emphasize, as though terms like "Salafi" are obligatory. Unfortunately, they replaced this and confused countless laypeople into using "Salafi" to mean "rightly guided", thereby inadvertently alleging that those who do not refer to themselves as "Salafis" are therefore misguided.

Yet misguided people have also started to use the term "Salafi" as a form of disparagement, saying, "Oh, so you are a Salafi," after which you are treated with suspicion, as though you are a person with anomalous opinions.

The Rise and Controversy of the Term "Salafi"

The term "Salafi" suddenly began to rise during the time of shaykh al-Albani and Rabee' al-Madkhali. Although shaykh al-Albani was among Ahlus-Sunnah, Rabee' al-Madkhali was not.

Rabee' al-Madkhali was the person who falsely concocted a definition of "manhaj" that opposed what the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah intended by it, saying that the Khawaarij were "Salafi in manhaj". The article on Rabee' al-Madkhali's misguidance should therefore be read to understand how he contradicted the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah:

• https://student.faith/articles/al-madkhali.html

Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen also criticized the term "Salafi", and the Madaakhilah, who were named after Rabee' al-Madkhali because they follow his false principles, attempted to bury this criticism. They concocted stories that never took place, claiming that Rabee' al-Madkhali was present when ibn 'Uthaymeen said those words.

However, neither the recording nor the transcription of the lecture series, nor the accounts of the foremost students of the shaykh, indicated any of this or suggested that shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen had retracted his criticism.

Ibn 'Uthaymeen first defines Salafiyyah positively as following the methodology of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Companions. He then criticizes turning it into an exclusive partisan identity:

>وأما اتخاذ السلفية كمنهج خاص ينفرد به الإنسان ويضلل من خالفه من المسلمين ولو كانوا على حق

>"As for adopting Salafiyyah as a particular methodology by which a person distinguishes himself and declares Muslims who disagree with him misguided, even when they are upon the truth..."

He continues by saying that making Salafiyyah into a partisan methodology is contrary to the way of the Salaf. He specifically criticizes some contemporary claimants to Salafiyyah who declare everyone disagreeing with them misguided, even when the truth is with the other person. He concludes:

>"Salafiyyah, in the sense of being a distinct party whose members have their own distinguishing characteristics and declare everyone else misguided, has nothing whatsoever to do with Salafiyyah."

The recording and answer are available on ibn 'Uthaymeen's official website, and the complete transcription appears in Liqaa' al-Baab al-Maftooh, no. 57.

There is also a closely related answer from Fataawa al-Haram an-Nabawi, recording 53a, entitled:

>"ما حكم الانتساب إلى السلف الصالح وقول أنا سلفي العقيدة؟"

>"What is the ruling on attributing oneself to the righteous predecessors and saying, 'I am Salafi in creed'?"

There, ibn 'Uthaymeen distinguishes between two meanings:

• Saying "I am Salafi" to mean, "I follow the Salaf": he considers this correct.
• Saying it to establish or join a separate party called "Salafi", whose members declare those outside it misguided: he rejects this.

He says that forming one party called Salafi, another called Ikhwaani, another called Tableeghi, and so forth is something he does not accept. He then states that he condemns such partisanship "in the strongest terms", while affirming that the Ummah should be united upon the methodology of the Messenger and his Companions. The page contains both the audio and its Arabic transcription. (Source)

We, as Ahlus-Sunnah, especially as moderators, emphasize and give priority to the term "Ahlus-Sunnah". We have not replaced it with "Salafi". It is therefore quite peculiar for the Haddaadiyyah to allege that we ascribe ourselves as "Salafis".

Even if laypeople loosely intend by this term to mean Ahlus-Sunnah, there is no immediate criticism of their use of it, as they may simply be repeating it without much consideration. This is especially the case when they have not been informed of what the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have said about this term, or that the term Ahlus-Sunnah has never been replaced with something else.

Any refutation or criticism from the Haddaadiyyah therefore requires the use of well-defined terms, either according to how we ourselves have defined them or according to what other scholars have stated. If neither exists, then their referring to us as "Salafis" is meaningless, worthless, and pointless.

The Reactionary Use of the Term "Athari"

Due to the surrounding controversies concerning the term "Salafi", other people started to use the term "Athari". This was rather a reaction to the criticism and misconceptions surrounding the term "Salafi".

However, as I have addressed before in my articles, this is a classification that inadvertently affirms the false categorization of Ahlus-Sunnah into three: Athari, Ash'ari, and Maturidi. The Ahlul-Kalaam sects concocted this false categorization because they wanted to claim for themselves the praiseworthy term of Ahlus-Sunnah.

Therefore, because misguided sects claim Ahlus-Sunnah for themselves, it does not mean that we should abandon the term Ahlus-Sunnah and start using "Salafi" or "Athari" instead. No, we are more deserving of Ahlus-Sunnah than they are, and their using the term Ahlus-Sunnah does not make their claim true either.

Labels, Laypeople, and Reality

However, this is said in general terms. Ahlus-Sunnah have divided people into three: laypeople, students of knowledge, and scholars. We know that there are more laypeople than there are students of knowledge, and that there are more students of knowledge than there are scholars.

Therefore, because laypeople have ignorantly repeated "Salafi" or "Athari", or even claimed for themselves "Ash'ari" or "Maturidi", it does not make those labels true, as laypeople often say things in which they are not grounded.

Meaning, if we were to explain the reality of those who refer to themselves as "Salafis", such as the Madkhalis, laypeople would distance themselves from this term and instead adopt the term Ahlus-Sunnah, or, in short, Sunni.

This applies in exactly the same way to the terms "Ash'ari" and "Maturidi", as laypeople are not grounded in 'Ilm al-Kalaam and do not know the reality of the misguidance of the Ashaa'irah and Maaturidiyyah, including their historical differences and how divided the Ahlul-Kalaam are.

Therefore, laypeople may attribute to themselves terms that do not warrant their being declared innovators or heretics.

We have previously established that, while attribution to the term "Ash'ari" is an innovation, there is no immediate condemnation whereby the person ascribing himself to the term is automatically called an innovator.

Again, there are generational differences among the Ashaa'irah, and their adherence to the innovation differs depending on the extent of their indulgence in 'Ilm al-Kalaam. Hence, they were divided into three categories, as I have previously explained with scholarly precedence:

>Ahlus-Sunnah in dealing with Ahlul-Kalaam and their levels

>Ahlus-Sunnah have dealt with the misguided sects of Ahlul-Kalaam before. They also differentiated between the early and later adherents of these sects, especially the Ashaa'irah, categorizing them into three levels:

>- The level of the mutakallimeen who adhere to the madhhab. >- The intermediate level: At this level, the scholar does taqleed of the mutakallimeen in terms of what they concluded, even if he himself is not a profound mutakallim, but is moderate. >- The level of the muqallideen: This is the level of general affiliation, in terms of the Ash'ariyyah being a banner for Ahlus-Sunnah.

>This distinction is important, and this is not to undermine the danger and harm of 'Ilm al-Kalaam, how grave its conclusions are, and what it can lead to. However, influence, as stated, has its levels. Just as knowledge varies among Ahlus-Sunnah, it is not inconceivable that this also applies to those influenced by 'Ilm al-Kalaam.

>Concerning the third level, this is not said to justify general affiliation, as we have previously established that it is an innovation to ascribe oneself as "Ash'ari" and is therefore haram. Rather, this is only to showcase the differences in levels of affiliation or adherence to the Ash'ariyyah sect, just as we say that the Zaydiyyah, despite being a branch of the Shee'ah sect, are not on the same level as the Raafidhah.

>One of the best books dealing with the Ashaa'irah and Maaturidiyyah, why they are considered misguided sects, and how they differ from the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah is this book:

>- The Ashaa'irah and Maatureediyyah in the Balance of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah

>Anyone who reads this will notice a great difference between how Ahlus-Sunnah addresses them and how unjust, deceptive, and manipulative the Haddaadiyyah have been in their ardent desire to consider the Ashaa'irah disbelievers. They have no principles in takfeer and no scholarly precedence whatsoever. Rather, you will find them speaking for themselves, foregoing and ignoring the contemporary scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.

>Yet again, they only take snippets and project them as being far worse, although the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah considered the intentions of the scholars, even when they were gravely mistaken, and praised their efforts in service of the Sunnah.

(Source)

This is consistent with what shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr explained while reading the work of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah:

>Shaykhul-Islam (may Allah Most High have mercy on him) says: "People doubt the sincerity of his intention, but what is most likely is that he acts according to what has reached him and what he has understood from the texts."

>This is the statement of shaykhul-Islam. Meaning, if such words are said about ar-Raazi and his conduct, as you have heard, then what about the likes of ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi, and others whose good intentions, sound methodology in following the Sunnah, and care for it are well known?

(Source)

Elsewhere, shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr said:

>As we have mentioned, benefit may be taken from the Ash'aris' refutation of the Mu'tazilah. Can it be said, "We do not accept al-Baaqillaani's refutation of the Mu'tazilah or his refutation of the Christians because he was an Ash'ari"? Can we say that? We do not say that, because there is nothing wrong with every person repelling those who are behind him, insha'Allah.

(Source)

This is consistent with what shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen explained in his lecture series on imam an-Nawawi's Forty Hadith:

>Accordingly, all the innovators concerning the Names and Attributes who oppose what the righteous predecessors followed have not fully realized faith in Allah. We do not say that they are not believers. Rather, they are believers without doubt, but they have not fully realized faith in Allah.

>What they have failed to fulfill from the four matters is the fourth: belief in the Names and Attributes of Allah. Thus, they have not fully realized faith in Him. They are mistaken and have opposed the way of the righteous predecessors, and their way is undoubtedly misguided.

>However, an individual is not judged to be misguided until the proof has been established against him. Once the proof has been established against him, and he persists in his error and misguidance, he is an innovator in that matter in which he opposed the truth, even if he is Salafi in other matters.

>Therefore, he is neither described as an innovator in an unrestricted sense nor as Salafi in an unrestricted sense. Rather, he is described as Salafi in that which agrees with the righteous predecessors and as an innovator in that which opposes them.

(Source)

If this is the case regarding the differences among the Ashaa'irah, then how much more so with the Maaturidiyyah, where non-scholars may use the term loosely and mistakenly, as though it were an accepted affiliation?

The Haddaadiyyah, however, in their ardent wish for such people to enter Hell, disparage Ahlus-Sunnah for showing justice and balance toward misguided sects. Yet even when people claim some affiliation with these groups, their condition requires proper assessment rather than immediate takfeer or tabdee'.

The Contradiction in Bashem's Claims

It is therefore quite revealing that Bashem claims to have studied under shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr, although, by the way, this was only online and not under him in person. He is therefore forced to say that shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr is misguided and has betrayed the Salaf and the Ummah, or there is serious misguidance in Bashem's own conceptions and understanding.

My own shaykh studied in person under shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr, and I also have the shaykh's works in my library. No contemporary scholar of Ahlus-Sunnah has opposed shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem in this regard, while Bashem, who is essentially a nobody, has neither scholarly standing nor scholarly precedence for his criticism, except what he takes from three non-scholars: ibn Shams, al-Khulayfi, and Dimashqiyyah, who are among the leading figures of misguidance within the Haddaadiyyah sect.

Bashem is therefore forced to say, "I have surpassed my shaykh in knowledge." But this is impossible to prove.

However, the Haddaadiyyah have gone so far astray that they have actually and falsely claimed that al-Khulayfi surpassed all the scholars of the world and possessed knowledge far greater and more in-depth than that of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Source) It would therefore not be surprising for Bashem's adolescent subscribers on Discord to consider him the "imam of Dunya and Akhirah, shaykh al-Islam, al-'Allaamah, and al-Faqeeh."

Meaning, such lofty titles were not bestowed upon him by the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, but by unfortunate and uninformed adolescents.

Rather, it is Bashem who betrayed his own online teachers and, in reality, betrayed the Salaf as well.

The Principle of Ahlus-Sunnah

The principle of Ahlus-Sunnah is that people are classified as Sunnis until proven otherwise. This is unlike the Haddaadiyyah and Madkhaliyyah, who treat everyone as misguided until proven otherwise.

This is the complete opposite of the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah. In his commentary on Sharh as-Sunnah, shaykh Naasir al-'Aql states explicitly:

>الأصل في المسلمين الإسلام والسنة، ما عدا من خرجوا وتميزوا بالبدعة

>"The basic presumption concerning Muslims is Islam and the Sunnah, except for those who have departed from that and become distinguished by innovation."

(Source)

For Bashem to come forward with such extraordinary allegations is pointless, especially when he provides no extraordinary evidence. He appears to be a man of many words but few substantive arguments, none of which have scholarly precedence among the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.

His declaration that all Deobandis are zanaadiqah is yet another demonstration of his misguidance in Khaarijiyyah.

• On Scholarly Justice Toward as-Suyooti, al-Azhar, and Deoband
• Mufti Muhammad Shafee' & shaykh Taqi Usmani the scholars of Islam

The Foundations We Uphold

Again, what is it that we, as Ahlus-Sunnah, not as "Salafis", emphasize and take as our primary sources? It is the revelation of Allah, namely the Qur'an and the Sunnah. These are the undisputed and binding foundations through which we define ourselves as Muslims, and their authority as the primary sources of the Deen is "قطعي" (definitively established). (Source)

As we have previously proven, the Qur'an and Sunnah are to be understood according to the understanding of the Salaf. This may sound like a slogan repeated by the so-called "Salafis", such as the Madaakhilah. However, the distinction lies in how the scholars defined the understanding of the Salaf and explained the principles governing its application.

In the present discussion concerning the evidentiary status of individual statements, our primary focus is the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them). How their statements are referred back to and applied is determined through established principles, namely usool al-fiqh. This is separate from the broader chronological usage of "the Salaf" for the first three praised generations.

What Usool al-Fiqh Encompasses

When we speak of usool al-fiqh, it is not confined merely to subsidiary matters of jurisprudence. Rather, its principles extend throughout the sciences of the Shari'ah, including 'aqeedah. How evidence is established, understood, interpreted, and applied in matters of belief is also governed by principles discussed in usool al-fiqh. (Source) (Source)

Anyone who has read my articles will recognize this, as what I write is supported by scholarly references. I do not put myself forward ahead of the scholars or their sources.

Through usool al-fiqh, we learn that the Qur'an and Sunnah are the primary and binding revealed sources of the Deen. After them, scholars discuss consensus (ijmaa'), the statement of a Sahaabi, and analogy (qiyaas) among the sources of legislation.

There are important nuances concerning how these sources are classified, ranked, and applied. However, the present point is simply to clarify what is not regarded as an independently authoritative proof, as explained below:

The statements of the Taabi'een and Atbaa' at-Taabi'een are not independently authoritative proofs. Rather, they are subject to principles governing how they are understood and applied.

Ibn al-Lahhaam states in al-Mukhtasar fee Usool al-Fiqh 'ala Madhhab al-Imam Ahmad:

>مذهب التابعي ليس بحجة عند الأكثر، وكذا لو خالف القياس في ظاهر كلام أحمد وأصحابنا

>"The position of a Taabi'ee is not an authoritative proof according to the majority. The same applies when it apparently contradicts qiyaas, according to the apparent position of Ahmad and our companions."

(Source)

The title of the section itself is:

>مسألة: مذهب التابعي ليس بحجة

>"Issue: The position of a Taabi'ee is not an authoritative proof."

From the explanation of shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen:

>Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaaj and others said: "The statements of the Taabi'een concerning subsidiary rulings are not authoritative proofs, so how could they be authoritative proofs in tafseer?"

>What he means is that their statements are not binding upon others who disagree with them, and this is correct. However, when they unanimously agree upon something, there can be no doubt that their agreement constitutes a authoritative proof.

>When they disagree, the statement of one of them is not an authoritative proof against another, nor against those who came after them. In that case, the matter is referred back to the language of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the general usage of the Arabic language, or the statements of the Sahaabah concerning it.

(Source)

---

Continued in:

• Exposing Wild_Extra_Dip's Betrayal of the Salaf, False Takfeer, and Deception Against the Hanafi Madhhab | Part 5

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Wild_Extra_Dip's Betrayal, Lies, and Hypocrisy

What are the characteristics of the munaafiqeen? The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

>"There are four characteristics: whoever possesses all of them is a pure hypocrite, and whoever possesses one of them possesses a characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it: when he is entrusted, he betrays the trust; when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a covenant, he acts treacherously; and when he disputes, he resorts to wicked and obscene conduct."

Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim. The relevant part here is:

>وَإِذَا خَاصَمَ فَجَرَ

>"And when he disputes, he resorts to wicked and obscene conduct."

We have come to know some information regarding Bashem (Wild_Extra_Dip), who was entrusted with something, betrayed that trust, and endangered a brother by implicating him to the authorities. Insha'Allah, sooner or later, we may publish some details regarding this atrocity of betrayal.

Likewise, throughout our subreddit and elsewhere, we have proven that Bashem lies when he speaks, especially when he appeals to his audience by claiming that he is an ardent follower of the Salaf and asserting that what he does is in conformity with the Salaf. These are only lies from him to bamboozle his audience, as though he has any scholarly precedent, when he does not. The Salaf are far removed from his conduct, his manner of conveying "knowledge", and his treacherous nature.

Bashem's False Declaration of Takfeer Against Me

In his declaration of takfeer against me, he posted this:

• How cn3m "student.kufr" deals with a sahabi VS an enemy of Islam

This was due to my exposing his falsehoods in my posts:

• A Refutation of the Haddaadiyyah's False Takfeer of imam Abu Bakr al-Baaqillaani
• Exposing Haddaadiyyah Deceptions: Al-Baaqillaani, Qudaamah ibn Madh'oon, and 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr al-'Aas

In his own hypocrisy, Bashem attempted to portray a portion of my texts as alleging that I mistreated the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), yet the very premise of his post shows that he is the very person he warns against:

>Previously (s)he spoke BIG against the two sahaba:

>- Qudamah ibn Math'oon

>- Abdullaah ibn Amr ibn Al Aas

>Video coming out soon!

This was from his post: "Another epic win for the Muslims!"

As he said in his video, I did not say "may Allah be pleased with him", but far more disturbing is that he does not encourage the followers of his tareeqah to say "peace and blessings of Allah be upon him" after mentioning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Even the Haddaadi subscriber wrote, "Add the salawat akhi" (Source)

Bashem's Curse and Takfeer Against the Hanafis

See the lies and manipulations in Bashem's post:

• Become a Hanafi if you want to incentivize zina

Remember, he invokes Allah to curse the Hanafis and considers them disbelievers. This again shows their extremism in takfeer, resembling the Khawaarij.

Bashem's Deliberate Misrepresentation of Hanafi Fiqh

Even in the very post, he wrote:

>Al Qadoori, a Hanafi author, may Allaah damn him, said:

>«[قال أصحابنا] إذا ‌استأجر ‌امرأة ليطأها أو ليزني بها فلا حد عليه». [التجريد للقدوري (11/ 5908)]

>Our companions (Hanafis) said: If a man rents a woman to have intercourse with her or to commit zina (fornicate) with her, there is no hadd (capital punishment) upon him

Remember, the post is not a sound criticism of Hanafi fiqh. It is built on truncated quotations, mistranslation, conflating two different legal questions, false attribution of poetry, and reckless takfeer.

Scholars do discuss fiqhi issues but claiming that Abu Haneefah "permitted prostitution" or became a disbeliever is demonstrably false.

Bashem Curses a Scholar Praised by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi

Bashem attempted to quote a fiqhi text without context, invoking Allah's name to curse imam al-Qudoori. Yet, in another post, he attempted to misuse the name of imam al-Khatib al-Baghdadi against imam Abu Haneefah. What, then, did al-Khatib al-Baghdadi say about imam al-Qudoori?

Al-Khatib personally narrated from al-Qudoori and said:

>كتبـت عنه، وكان صدوقا

>"I wrote hadith from him, and he was truthful."

Al-Khatib then described his standing:

>انتهت إليه بالعراق رئاسة الحنفية، وعظم وارتفع جاهه

>"The leadership of the Hanafis in Iraq culminated with him, and his rank became great and his standing elevated."

Adh-Dhahabi transmitted this favorable assessment in Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa'. (Source)

The Haddaadi Contradiction Regarding Shaykh Husaam al-Humaaydah

The Haddaadiyyah have attempted to claim shaykh Husaam al-Humaaydah in support of their curses and takfeer against the Ashaa'irah and Maaturidiyyah. However, shaykh Husaam is a Hanafi scholar who, by Bashem's standard, is also deserving of Allah's curses, especially since the shaykh explained the fiqhi text of imam al-Qudoori.

• لفقه الحنفي: شرح مختصر القدوري

This, by the way, shows that what Bashem attempted to portray as fawaahish in the Hanafi madhhab is nothing but lies, manipulation, and deliberate deception through selective citations, as though the text says something contrary to the Deen of Allah.

What al-Qudoori actually said

The quotation from at-Tajreed is real:

>إذا استأجر امرأة ليطأها أو ليزني بها فلا حد عليه

But the attacker stops before al-Qudoori explains the ruling:

>فصار شبهة في الحد

Meaning that the purported contract becomes a shubhah concerning the imposition of the hadd. Al-Qudoori is discussing whether the extremely strict evidentiary and classificatory requirements of a fixed hadd have been satisfied. He is not declaring the intercourse lawful. (Source)

The translation of hadd as "capital punishment" is also misleading. Hadd means a legally fixed punishment. The classical punishment for zina differs according to whether the offender is muhsan; it is not invariably a death penalty. (Source)

The attack suppresses the most important words in the passage. Al-Qudoori does not merely say that an ijaarah normally concerns usufruct. He continues:

>فصار شبهة في الحد

Therefore, the argument is not:

>"The woman has been lawfully purchased for sex."

It is:

>"The invalid contractual form bears enough formal resemblance to a transaction involving usufruct to create a disputed technical shubhah that prevents application of the fixed hadd."

That reasoning may be regarded as weak. Indeed, Abu Yoosuf, Muhammad and ash-Shaafi'ee rejected it. But an erroneous application of shubhah is not the legalization of zina.

Hanafi books explicitly call it unlawful zina

A Hanafi work states the ruling in a chapter whose title leaves no possibility of misunderstanding:

>باب إذا استأجر امرأة ليطأها لا تحل له، وهو زاني يلقى الله تعالى بكبيرة الزنا إن لم يتب

>"Chapter: When a man hires a woman to have intercourse with her, she does not become lawful for him. He is a fornicator who will meet Allah carrying the major sin of zina unless he repents."

(Source)

The next sentence explains that the fixed hadd is dropped only because of the claimed shubhah.

Another standard Hanafi work, al-Ikhtiyaar li-Ta'leel al-Mukhtaar, states:

>فلا حد عليه ويعزر

>"The hadd is not imposed upon him, and he is punished by ta'zeer."

It then immediately records that Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad held that the hadd should be imposed. (Source)

The title "Become a Hanafi if you want to incentivize zina" is therefore a plain falsehood.

The quotation from as-Saghadi proves nothing different

The isolated sentence:

>ولا حد عليها في قول أبي حنيفة

only says that according to Abu Haneefah the fixed hadd is not imposed upon the woman in that particular legal scenario. It does not say:

• the act is lawful;
• the agreement is a valid marriage;
• she is not sinful;
• prostitution is permissible;
• no discretionary punishment may be imposed.

The attacker is repeatedly replacing the legal term "absence of the fixed hadd because of shubhah" with "permission." These are not remotely synonymous.

In fiqh, the non-application of a hadd does not turn a prohibited act into a lawful one. Theft under circumstances that prevent the hadd remains prohibited. Intercourse arising from a defective marriage may be legally unlawful while the existence of the purported marriage blocks the hadd. An act can be sinful and punishable by ta'zeer without satisfying the special conditions of a hadd.

Misusing Early Reports Against Imam Abu Haneefah

A chain to a statement does not prove the statement's accusation. Remember, adh-Dhahabi established the general principle:

>كلام الاقران بعضهم في بعض لا يعبأ به لا سيما إذا لاح لك أنه لعداوة أو لمذهب، أو لحسد

>"The speech of contemporaries against one another is not given weight, particularly when it becomes apparent that it arose from hostility, a madhhab or envy."

(Source)

The ability to quote early citations from the Salaf does not equal the knowledge and understanding of the one attempting to convey from them, as even a kaafir, the most ignorant, and a munaafiq can easily cite from the Salaf in their aspersions against Islam, disparagement of scholars, and even their wish to harm the Muslims. This is the illusion of the misguided sects, as though they have far more in-depth knowledge when it is only surface-level, and their bamboozlement of their audiences, as though they have any position of authority or final say.

Relevant fatwa regarding all this:

>A Report Concerning Imam Abu Haneefah and Its Refutation

>Fatwa no. 214978

>Sunday, 21 Ramadan 1434 AH, corresponding to July 28, 2013

>Question

>Is this report disparaging Abu Haneefah authentic?

>Al-Fasawi narrated in his book al-Ma'rifah wa'l-Tarikh (vol. 1, p. 368):

>"'Ali ibn 'Uthman ibn Nufayl narrated to me: Abu Mushir narrated to us: Yahya ibn Hamzah narrated to us, while Sa'id was listening, that Abu Haneefah said, 'Were a man to worship this sandal, seeking nearness to Allah through it, I would see no problem with that.' Sa'eed then said, 'This is outright disbelief.'"

>Answer

>Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, and his Companions. To proceed:

>A statement such as this is something that one should be certain Imam Abu Haneefah never uttered. No rational human being would say such a thing, so how could it be said by a Muslim, let alone by a man who was one of the great imams and jurists of the Muslims?

>Ibn an-Najjaar said in his book refuting Abu Bakr al-Khatib al-Baghdadi:

>"As for what he transmitted from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl al-Qattaan, through Yahya ibn Hamzah, that Abu Haneefah said, 'Were a man to worship this sandal, seeking nearness to Allah through it, I would see no problem with that,' whereupon Sa'eed said, 'This is outright disbelief,' none of Abu Haneefah's companions transmitted this.

>Know that a person's companions know him better than an outsider does. Then know that the madhhab of Abu Haneefah has principles, foundations, and conditions from which it does not depart. As for the foundations of his madhhab, may Allah be pleased with him, he held that the Qur'an and transmitted reports should be followed whenever they were found...

>Once it is established that these were the foundations of Abu Haneefah, how could it be permissible for him to say such a thing while knowing the statement of Allah, Most High: 'We only worship them so that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position'? Therefore, this is not authentic from Abu Haneefah."

>End quote, abridged.

>It is also stated in the book The Status of Imam Abu Haneefah Among the Hadith Scholars by Dr. Muhammad al-Haarithi:

>"Al-Khatib said: Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl al-Qattaan informed us: 'Abdullah ibn Ja'far ibn Durustawayh informed us: Ya'qub ibn Sufyan narrated to us: 'Ali ibn 'Uthman ibn Nufayl narrated to me: Abu Mushir narrated to us: Yahya ibn Hamzah narrated to us, while Sa'eed was listening, that Abu Haneefah said, 'Were a man to worship this sandal, seeking nearness to Allah through it, I would see no problem with that.' Sa'eed then said, 'This is outright disbelief.'

>He narrated it again, saying: Ibn Rizq informed us: Ahmad ibn Ja'far ibn Sallaam informed us: Ahmad ibn 'Ali al-Abbar narrated to us: 'Abdul-A'la ibn Waasil narrated to us: My father narrated to us: Ibn Fudayl narrated to us, from al-Qaasim ibn Habeeb, who said:

>'I placed my sandal among the pebbles and then said to Abu Haneefah, "What do you say about a man who prays to this sandal until he dies, while nevertheless recognizing Allah within his heart?" He replied, "He is a believer." I said, "I will never speak to you again."'

>These two inconsistent narrations clearly reveal falsehood and fabrication by someone who does not fear Allah.

>In the first narration is 'Abdullah ibn Ja'far ibn Durustawayh, the grammarian. Al-Laalikaa'i declared him weak, and al-Barqani said, 'They declared him weak.' 'Ali ibn 'Uthman ibn Nufayl is unknown, and I did not find anyone who wrote a biography of him. Perhaps he confused the chain recklessly, or it was attached in this form.

>Furthermore, if Yahya ibn Hamzah is the well-known judge, he was from Damascus. It has not been established that Abu Haneefah travelled to Syria, nor did Yahya enter Kufah. He did not meet Abu Haneefah, even though the two were contemporaries.

>In the second narration is al-Qaasim ibn Habeeb. Ibn Ma'een said concerning him, 'He is nothing.' Adh-Dhahabi, ibn al-Jawzi, and many other scholars also declared him weak.

>As for the text itself, we deem it impossible that such a statement could have proceeded from Abu Haneefah. Indeed, we deem it impossible that such a statement could have proceeded from even the least of the Muslim scholars. What, then, of a scholar whose knowledge and intellect were acknowledged throughout the world?

>This is nothing but sectarian partisanship. May Allah destroy those who call to it."

>End quote.

>Ibn 'Abdul-Barr explained in his book al-Intiqaa' the reason why such disparaging statements were made against Imam Abu Haneefah. He said:

>"Many of the people of hadith permitted themselves to disparage Abu Haneefah because he rejected many solitary reports transmitted by upright narrators. His methodology concerning such reports was to compare them against the established body of hadith and the meanings of the Qur'an. Whatever departed from that, he rejected and called irregular.

>In addition, he held that acts of obedience, such as prayer and other deeds, were not themselves called eemaan. All those from Ahlus-Sunnah who held that eemaan consists of speech and action rejected his statement and declared it an innovation.

>Furthermore, he was envied because of his understanding and intelligence."

>End quote.

>It should be known that the imams who praised and endorsed Imam Abu Haneefah were more numerous than those who disparaged him.

>Ibn 'Abdul-Barr said:

>"Those who narrated from Abu Haneefah, declared him trustworthy, and praised him were more numerous than those who spoke against him. Among the people of hadith who spoke against him, most of what they criticized was his extensive use of opinion and qiyaas, as well as irjaa'.

>It used to be said that a man's prominence among the earlier generations could be recognized by the widely differing opinions people held concerning him. They said: Do you not see that two groups went to extremes concerning 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib, peace be upon him, an excessive lover and an excessive hater?

>It has also been narrated in a hadith that two men will be ruined concerning him: an excessive lover and a slanderous hater. This is the characteristic of people of distinction and those who reach the highest degree in religion and virtue."

>End quote from Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm wa Fadlih.

>Indeed, shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah included Imam Abu Haneefah among the imams whom the Muslims agreed to praise. He said:

>"A group said that whoever's faith and piety became widely known among the people, and whom the Muslims agreed to praise, such as 'Umar ibn 'Abdul-'Aziz, al-Hasan al-Basri, Sufyan ath-Thawri, Abu Haneefah, Maalik, as-Shaafi'ee, Ahmad, al-Fudayl ibn 'Iyad, Abu Sulayman al-Darani, Ma'roof al-Karkhi, and 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, may Allah Most High be pleased with them, and others, we testify that he is among the people of Paradise."

>End quote from Majmoo' al-Fatawa.

>For further benefit concerning the defence of Imam Abu Haneefah, see fatwa no. 43484.

>And Allah knows best.

(Source)

No evidence in the cited report identifies Hadiyyah as the poet

In the narration, Hadiyyah reports that Shaqeeq al-Balkhi came to Marw and praised imam Abu Haneefah. The people then mentioned a response to the poetry praising Abu Haneefah. The wording attributes the response to an unidentified person, not to Hadiyyah himself.

The surrounding versions use expressions such as:

>فأجابه بعضهم بقوله

>"Some of them responded to him by saying..."

and:

>قال رجل

>"A man said..."

Hadiyyah was therefore the narrator of the incident, not the named composer of the hostile poem.

Imam ibn 'Abdul-Barr said regarding this:

>"This is prejudice, ignorance, backbiting, and harm against the scholars. This is because, if he has an explicit text from the Book and an established report concerning the issue, then no one may say otherwise and contradict the text. A definitive text is that which does not admit interpretation. As for that which admits interpretation according to the established principles and the Arabic language, the one who holds such an interpretation is excused."

(Source)

Bashem's ignorance, or rather his pretentiousness, is astounding, as he called Hadiyyah a faqeeh when no scholar ever described him as such. He was an early hadith transmitter from Marw who died in 241 AH. The standard biographical sources present him primarily as a raawi and muhaddith, not as a famous faqeeh or independent juristic authority. (Source)

Ibn Hibbaan included Hadiyyah in ath-Thiqaat and said:

>ربما أخطأ

>"He would sometimes make mistakes."

(Source)

---

Continued in:

• Exposing Wild_Extra_Dip's Betrayal of the Salaf, False Takfeer, and Deception Against the Hanafi Madhhab | Part 2