u/Extension_Brick6806

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

The Haddaadiyyah's Reckless Takfeer Without Precedence

The confused and ignorant Haddaadi, due to his extremism and vileness in misguidance, goes out of his way, with no imam in precedence, in declaring takfeer in particular towards imam Abu Bakr al-Baaqillaani al-Ash'ari. This Haddaadi inadvertently opposes imam Ahmad, as he said: "Beware of speaking on a matter in which you have no imam."

This alone is indicative that the Haddaadiyyah sect foregoes, ignores, and puts itself beyond the status of scholars, but instead treats itself as far more capable and more insightful than the scholars themselves. However, the illusion of being able to speak and cite statements blinds them, but that's beside the point.

Al-Baaqillaani's Scholarly Background and His Difference from Later Ash'aris

Among the shuyookh of al-Baaqillaani were ad-Daaraqutni and ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani. This explains that even when one affiliates with or is upon Ash'ariyyah, it doesn't mean one will have exactly the same foundations in misguidance all the way through, or where every box is ticked in opposing the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah. Even the Madkhaliyyah sect acknowledges that al-Baaqillaani affirms Allah is Above the Throne (at-Tamheed, p. 264), contradicting some of the tenets in belief of the Ash'ariyyah sect.

Selective Citations and the Misrepresentation of al-Baaqillaani

This Haddaadi is deceiving the readers through selective citations. Granted, al-Baaqillaani has errors, and great scholars have clarified this. However, as though the Haddaadi is being truthful in representing the stance of al-Baaqillaani, he said in al-Insaaf:

>It must be known that Allah, the Exalted, is speaking, and that His speech is neither created nor originated. The proof for this is His statement:

>>منهم من كلم اللّه

>>"Among them were those to whom Allah spoke,"

>His statement:

>>وكلم اللّه موسى تكليماً

>>"And Allah spoke to Musa directly,"

>His statement:

>>وتمت كلمة ربك

>>"And the word of your Lord was completed,"

>and the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The superiority of the speech of Allah over the speech of creation is like the superiority of the Creator over the created."

>It is not described with a beginning or an end, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to seek refuge for al-Hasan and al-Husayn, saying: "I seek refuge for you both in the perfect and comprehensive words of Allah." It is impossible for a created being to seek refuge in something created. Thus, it is established that he sought refuge for a created being in something uncreated, along with other Ayat and narrations.

>Also, if He were not speaking, He would necessarily be described with the opposite of speech, such as muteness, silence, and inability of expression, and Allah is far exalted above that.

The Missing Context Behind al-Baaqillaani's Refutation

The Haddaadiyyah will never be sincere in providing the context, as al-Baaqillaani only said this as a refutation, and a refutation can only be understood if one knows what the counterpart is saying, not by merely citing a refutation without context. This is similar to how fatawa cannot be applied to a specific situation unless one knows the question and whether it applies to your specific situation.

Al-Baaqillaani said, granted again, it might not be exactly as how Ahlus-Sunnah would correctly reply as a refutation, but he tried, just as he affirmed and acknowledged in the above citation what Ahlus-Sunnah would say. Deficiency in understanding and, due to the influence of 'Ilm al-Kalaam, what has caused misinterpretation is not a cause or reason for declaring takfeer on him individually. The context says:

>If they say: "We are agreed that the Qur'an consists of surahs, the surahs consist of verses, the verses consist of words, and the words consist of letters and sounds. All of this indicates that it is originated and created, because the surahs are numbered and counted, having a beginning and an end. Likewise are the verses and letters. Whatever is subject to limitation and counting, and has a beginning and an end, is created."

>This is the doubt that has blackened the faces of those from the ignorant among Ahlus-Sunnah who agreed with them in this statement, due to their ignorance of the paths of verification. They conceded to them what they had established from this doubt, while still claiming that His speech is not created, and they said something like their statement: "His speech is letters and sounds." Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return.

>The answer to this doubt is to say to them: As for what you mentioned of limitation, definition, division, letters, and sounds, all of that returns to the recitation of created beings, not to the speech of Allah, the Exalted, which is an attribute from the attributes of His Essence. This is because everything you mentioned requires points of articulation from a tongue, lips, and throat, and Allah is exalted and far removed from all of that. Rather, we say that His speech is an eternal attribute belonging to Him. He has no need in it of an instrument, such as a sound, a letter, or a point of articulation. He is greatly exalted above that.

>Likewise, what you mentioned of limitation, counting, beginning, and end only returns to the recitation of created beings of His speech and their writing of His speech, not to His speech, which is an attribute. Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has clarified this with the clearest clarification for whoever has sound understanding, because He, the Exalted, said: "Say: If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought the like of it as a supplement." And His statement: "And if whatever trees are upon the earth were pens, and the sea were supplied after it by seven more seas, the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allah is Mighty, Wise."

>It is known that one of us may write several copies of the Mushaf with a single inkwell, and one of us may recite several completions. Therefore, what is limited, counted, and defined, and what is described with a beginning and an end, are our attributes, such as our recitation of His speech, our writing of His speech, and our memorization of His speech.

>As for His attribute, which is His speech in reality, it is not described with passing away, limitation, counting, beginning, or end, according to what Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has informed on the basis of verification. This is because everything described with beginning, completion, limitation, and counting is only an attribute of the created being, not an attribute of the Creator, eternal by His eternity and existing by His existence, which cannot precede Him nor come after Him.

>So know this principle and verify it, and you will be safe from the misguidance of the two groups and free from the ignorance of the two parties.

The Position of Ahlus-Sunnah on Allah's Speech

Yes, we, the Ahlus-Sunnah, say that Allah spoke with letters and sound. (Source) However, the misunderstanding of Ahlul-Kalaam is not differentiating between what the likes of ibn Taymiyyah clarified: "The Qur'an which the Muslims recite is the speech of the Creator, while the voice with which the servant recites is the voice of the reciter." (Source)

Misusing imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah Against Their Own Principles

Attempting to use the names of the great scholars, like imam Ahmad and shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, is misusing and abusing their names, especially in Haddaadiyyah's attempt to prove as though these imams declared specified takfeer on every Jahmi, and therefore as though every Ash'ari is a kaafir. This again is the grave ignorance of Haddaadiyyah's Kalaami principle, which they inadvertently adhered to in declaring specified takfeer on Ahlul-Kalaam. We have proven that many times, and any sincere and intelligent person will concede to this.

The Kalaami Roots of Haddaadiyyah's Approach to Takfeer

As I've explained elsewhere:

>What did Ahlul-Kalaam say in this regard, such as the Ashaa'irah? They argue that the ordinary Muslims are incumbent to know matters of detailed evidences. (Source)

>It should be noted that the Kalaamiyyah roots of this approach actually stem from the Mu'tazilah, unbeknownst to the Ahlul-Kalaam themselves. Unfortunately, some Ahlus-Sunnah, unaware of its Kalaamiyyah roots, repeat what al-Qaraafi was saying in terms of excuse of ignorance, as he said in Tanqeeh al-Fusool: "Therefore, Allah did not excuse him for ignorance in the foundations of the Deen by consensus." Similarly, al-Qaraafi wrote in his book al-Furooq: "The accountability for Tawheed and the absence of an excuse for ignorance regarding it falls under the category of unbearable accountability."!!

>His statements give the impression that Allah has placed an overwhelming responsibility beyond human capacity, leaving no allowance for ignorance. However, this is not the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. According to the Shari'ah, there is an excuse for ignorance regarding the fundamentals of the Deen, and Allah does not hold people accountable for what they could not reasonably know. (Relevant)

>The innovators, the false claimants as "Sunnis", such as the Haddaadiyyah, repeat this Mu'tazili, Zaydi, Ash'ari, Qadari, Khaariji, and Dhaahiri argument. Hence, any mistake in the branches of 'aqeedah, such as how the Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes of Allah are to be understood, claiming there is no excuse of ignorance in this!! Hence why they declare Ahlul-Kalaam as zanaadiqah or as disbelievers, unaware that they are declaring them on the basis of Mu'tazili and Ash'ari arguments!! (Source)

(Source)

Ibn Taymiyyah on General Takfeer Versus Specified Takfeer

Secondly, the evidence that imam Ahmad and shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah did not declare specified takfeer on the Jahmiyyah is clear from pages 347 to 350 in Majmoo' al-Fataawa:

>However, the point here is that the positions of the imams are built upon this distinction between the general category and the specific individual. Because of this, a group narrated from them that there was disagreement regarding this, but they did not understand the depth of their statement.

>One group narrates from Ahmad two unrestricted reports regarding the takfeer of the people of innovation, to the extent that they make the disagreement include the takfeer of the Murji'ah and the Shi'ah who prefer Ali, and they may even give preference to declaring them disbelievers and eternally in the Fire. This is not the position of Ahmad, nor of any of the imams of Islam. Rather, his statement does not differ that he did not declare the Murji'ah disbelievers, those who say, "Eemaan is statement without action," nor did he declare disbelievers those who prefer Ali over Uthmaan. Rather, his explicit texts show refraining from making takfeer of the Khawaarij, the Qadariyyah, and others.

>He would only declare the Jahmiyyah disbelievers, those who denied the names and attributes of Allah, because the contradiction of their statements to what the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came with was obvious and clear, and because the reality of their statement was ta'teel of the Creator. He had been tested by them until he came to know the reality of their affair, and that it revolved around ta'teel. The takfeer of the Jahmiyyah is well known from the Salaf and the imams.

>However, he did not declare their specific individuals disbelievers. The one who calls to a statement is greater than the one who merely says it, the one who punishes his opponent is greater than the one who merely calls to it, and the one who declares his opponent a disbeliever is greater than the one who merely punishes him.

>Despite this, those who were among the rulers used to hold the statement of the Jahmiyyah, saying that the Qur'an is created, that Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter, and other such things. They called the people to this, tested them concerning it, punished them if they did not respond to them, and declared those who did not respond to them disbelievers. They would even seize a prisoner and not release him until he affirmed the statement of the Jahmiyyah that the Qur'an is created and other such matters. They would not appoint anyone to office, nor give anyone provision from the public treasury, except to those who said this.

>Despite this, imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) asked Allah to have mercy on them and sought forgiveness for them, because he knew that it had not been made clear to them that they were denying the Messenger and rejecting what he came with. Rather, they interpreted, erred, and blindly followed those who said that to them.

>Likewise, when ash-Shaafi'ee said to Hafs al-Fard, when he said, "The Qur'an is created," "You have disbelieved in Allah, the Magnificent," he was clarifying to him that this statement is disbelief. He did not rule that Hafs had apostatized merely because of that, because the proof by which he would become a disbeliever had not become clear to him. Had he believed that he was an apostate, he would have sought to have him killed. He also explicitly stated in his books that the testimony of the people of desires is accepted, and that prayer behind them is valid.

>Likewise, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee, and Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on them) said regarding the Qadari: "If he denies the knowledge of Allah, he has disbelieved." The wording of some of them was: "Debate the Qadariyyah with knowledge. If they affirm it, they are defeated, and if they deny it, they have disbelieved." Ahmad was asked about the Qadari: "Does he disbelieve?" He said: "If he denies knowledge, he has disbelieved." In that case, the one who denies knowledge is of the same type as the Jahmiyyah.

>As for killing the caller to innovations, he may be killed in order to restrain his harm from the people, just as the highway robber is killed. Even if the matter itself is not disbelief, not everyone whom it is commanded to kill is killed because of apostasy. Based on this, the killing of Ghaylaan al-Qadari and others may have been from this angle.

>These issues are discussed in detail elsewhere. We have only pointed them out here as a reminder.

(Source)

Ibn Taymiyyah's Praise of al-Baaqillaani

So, what did shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah say about imam al-Baaqillaani?:

>"He is the best of the mutakallimeen affiliated with al-Ash'ari. There is none among them like him, neither before him nor after him."

(Source)

Ibn Taymiyyah Considered al-Baaqillaani Closer to the Sunnah

It's even embarrassing for him to attempt to quote from Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, although ibn Taymiyyah clarified that al-Baaqillaani was among those closer to the Sunnah and more following of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The nuances of what ibn Taymiyyah explained are beyond the heads of Haddaadiyyah. What did ibn Taymiyyah say?:

>The matter is not as he mentioned, for the criticism of both groups is widely transmitted from Ahmad among those closest to him from his household and companions, who were concerned with gathering the statements of imam Ahmad, such as al-Marwazi, al-Khallaal, Abu Bakr 'Abdul-'Aziz, Abu 'Abdullah ibn Battah, and their likes. They mentioned concerning that which every person acquainted with him knows to be among the most firmly established matters from Ahmad.

>These Iraqis are more knowledgeable of the statements of Ahmad than those affiliated with the Sunnah and Hadith from the people of Khurasaan, whose path was followed by ibn Mandah, Abu Nasr, Abu Isma'eel al-Harawi, and their likes. For this reason, 'Abdullah ibn Ata' al-Ibrahimi authored a book concerning those who took knowledge from Ahmad. He mentioned a group, among whom he mentioned Abu Bakr al-Khallaal, but he thought that he was Abu Muhammad al-Khallaal, the shaykh of al-Qaadhi Abu Ya'la and Abu Bakr al-Khateeb, so this one became confused with that one for him.

>This is like the Iraqis affiliated with the people of affirmation from the followers of ibn Kullab, such as Abu al-'Abbaas al-Qalanisi, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Mahdi at-Tabari, al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-Baaqillaani, and their likes. They were closer to the Sunnah and more following of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and his likes than the people of Khurasaan who inclined toward the path of ibn Kullab. For this reason, al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr ibn at-Tayyib would sometimes write in his answers: Muhammad ibn at-Tayyib al-Hanbali, just as al-Ash'ari would say, since al-Ash'ari and his companions affiliated themselves with Ahmad ibn Hanbal and his likes from the imams of the Sunnah. Al-Ash'ari was closer to the madhhab of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ahlus-Sunnah than many of the later ones affiliated with Ahmad who inclined toward some of the speech of the Mu'tazilah, such as ibn 'Aqeel, Sadaqah ibn al-Husayn, ibn al-Jawzi, and their likes.

>Abu Dharr al-Harawi had adopted the path of ibn al-Baaqillaani and introduced it into the Haram. It is said that he was the first to introduce it into the Haram. From him, those who took it among the people of the Maghrib took it, for they would hear al-Bukhaari from him and take that from him, just as Abu al-Waleed al-Baaji took it. Then al-Baaji traveled to Iraq and took the path of al-Baaqillaani from Abu Ja'far al-Simnaani, the judge of Mosul and companion of ibn al-Baaqillaani. We have already expanded the discussion on these matters and clarified the dispute and confusion that occurred in them elsewhere.

(Source)

The Scholars' Praise of al-Baaqillaani

Who even is he to forego and oppose the great scholars by declaring specified takfeer on al-Baaqillaani when ibn Taymiyyah did not? Yet other scholars have also praised al-Baaqillaani.

>Al-Imam, al-'Allaamah, the unique one among the Mutakallimeen, the foremost of the scholars of usool, the judge Abu Bakr, Muhammad ibn at-Tayyib ibn Muhammad ibn Ja'far ibn Qaasim, al-Basri, then al-Baghdadi, ibn al-Baaqillaani, the author of works. His understanding and intelligence were proverbial.

>He heard from Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Ja'far al-Qati'i, Abu Muhammad ibn Masi, and a group.

>Abu al-Fath ibn Abi al-Fawaris narrated from him.

>He was trustworthy, an imam, and brilliant. He authored works refuting the Raafidah, the Mu'tazilah, the Khawaarij, the Jahmiyyah, and the Karraamiyyah, and he defended the way of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari. He may have differed with him in difficult matters, for he was among his peers, and he took the knowledge of reasoning from his companions.

(Siyah A'laam an-Nubalaa' by imam adh-Dhahabi)

Al-Qaadhi 'Iyaad's Praise of al-Baaqillaani

Then imam adh-Dhahabi cited:

>Al-Qaadhi 'Iyaad mentioned him in Tabaqaat al-Maalikiyyah and said: He was the one titled "the Sword of the Sunnah," "the Tongue of the Ummah," the one who spoke on behalf of Ahlul-Hadith and the way of Abu al-Hasan. The leadership of the Maalikiyyah in his time ended with him, and he had a great study circle in the masjid of Basrah.

And this is clear misguidance from this Haddaadi, who treads the path of Iblees in his extremism and deviance, with his excessive hatred of the Ashaa'irah, opposing the justice and balance of Ahlus-Sunnah in dealing with them.

• Ash'ari Scholars Between the Transgression of Extremists and the Duty of Fairness

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

Exactly:

>The prophet ﷺ said that the sign of the hypocrite is lying and also, being excessive in criticism and hatred when he differs with a man

How ironic to accuse a shaykh while Haddaadiyyah have proven to be liars, manipulators, concoct falsehoods, resort to deception, and are the dajjaalic, ever-opposers of ibn Rajab, ibn Taymiyyah, and countless contemporary scholars in their praise of imam Abu Haneefah, imam Maalik, imam an-Nawawi, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, imam as-Suyooti, and so on. But because you reference those scholars who praised these imams, they call you mudajjanah, while they are silent over the very scholars we rely on to have respect and justice towards said imams. Even Abu an-Nouman Bashem declined a mubaahalah but ran away, and our sub is filled with how the Haddaadiyyah are dajjaalic liars. So the hadith exactly fits how they are all hypocritical.

It's no surprise since these Haddaadiyyah learn from "the best" in dajjaalic lying behavior:

• More than 20 lies in the words of Muhammad Shams ad-Deen!! And my stance on the mubaahalah!!
• A full hour of Muhammad Shams ad-Deen's lies, exclusive documentation

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

Scholarly Recognition of Mufti Muhammad Shafee' and shaykh Taqi Usmani

The official shaykh ibn Baz website publishes Mufti Muhammad Shafee's hadith ijaazah to ibn Baz. In it, Muhammad Shafee' says ibn Baz asked him for ijaazah

>"مع ما هو فيه من مقام رفيع في العلم والفضل"

meaning, despite ibn Baz's lofty rank in knowledge and virtue. The fact that ibn Baz requested ijaazah from Muhammad Shafee' is a clear sign of respect for him. (Source)

Shaykh Taqi Usmani's own memoir gives more detail: Ibn Baz came to meet Muhammad Shafee', asked him to stay longer after recognizing his thabaat, took him to the Haram and library, invited him for lunch, then requested ijaazah from him. (Source)

In the same memoir, shaykh Taqi Usmani says he and his brother Muhammad Rafee' asked shaykh ibn Baz for ijaazah, and later ibn Baz gave ijaazah to both brothers. This is direct scholarly recognition from ibn Baz.

Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr and Fairness Toward Scholars

Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr said while discussing the commentaries on Saheeh Muslim: "Among the contemporaries, Shabbir Ahmad al-Uthmani wrote a comprehensive commentary on the Saheeh, but he did not complete it. He named it Fath al-Mulhim fi Sharh Saheeh Muslim, and Muhammad Taqi al-Uthmani completed it, though it had not yet been completed [at the time]. This commentary is good overall, even though its author is contemporary." (Source)

Speaking of shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, and imam an-Nawawi, in the very same source, the shaykh says:

>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?

But no, this vile and despicable, dajjaal, and ugly human being wants to cast aspersions by following the path of Iblees, as though the scholars and intellectuals he disparages and declares takfeer on had no good intentions, sound methodology in following the Sunnah, and care for it, when these were well known. How satanic and dajjaalic Bashem is.

Ahlus-Sunnah Between Fair Criticism and Extremist Generalization

As Ahlus-Sunnah, scholars do not shy away from constructively critiquing some of the deviance Daar al-'Uloom graduates have, but they also do not exaggerate by generalizing their criticisms against all Deobandis, nor lie as though they are "enemies of Islam". It is only the extremist Haddaadiyyah who do so. They just want to cast aspersions and have no sound methodology, but wish for you to remain in Hell forever, unlike Ahlus-Sunnah, who are fair, balanced, give the benefit of the doubt, and wish for you the straight path and Jannah.

I know Ahlus-Sunnah brothers with Pakistani and Afghani heritage who know their language and are proficient. This is unlike lying Bashem, who only wants to take tidbits as though this is a representation of Deobandis. Similarly, Bashem is unable to say that the graduation of shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin al-'Abbaad from al-Azhar is unlike other graduates of al-Azhar. This is being fair and just.

The Misuse of Thanawi's Statement on Caution with Young Boys

Concerning what dajjaalic Bashem cited:

In Majalis Hakim al-Ummat, the passage appears under the heading:

>نو عمر لڑکوں سے اختلاط میں احتیاط لازم ہے

>"Caution is necessary regarding mixing with young boys."

I've been told that the text says that Thanawi forbade his people from sending a young boy to the writing room where he was alone, saying, "I do not trust my nafs." It then says the effect was that the people of the khanqah became cautious regarding boys.

The Fiqhi Context of the Amrad in the Books of Ahlus-Sunnah

Now, I don't know Urdu nor this work which the dajjaal cited. However, in the discussions of fiqh, such matters are not strange, but due to the sickness in the heart of Bashem, he projects this with bad intention and filth, as imam ibn Qudaamah and many other scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah address such matters, such as the ruling on looking at a beardless young man (الأمرد).

Ibn Qudaamah says in al-Mughni: "If the amrad is beautiful and fitnah is feared by looking at him, then deliberately looking at him is not allowed." (Source)

Even shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah gives a very balanced breakdown. He says looking at an amrad with desire is haram by agreement. He also says looking without need at something that may lead to fitnah is not allowed, except where there is a valid need, such as medical treatment or a comparable necessity. He adds that whoever repeatedly looks at an amrad and claims, "I am not looking with desire," is not truthful if there is no need for that repeated gaze. (Source)

The Harm of Dishonest Argumentation Against Scholars

At this point, Bashem actually resembles the enemies of Islam who want to cast aspersions against the scholars of Islam, and even Islam itself. That's why people who seek the truth of Islam, when stumbling upon Bashem's posts, comments, private messages, and his threats of doxxing others who don't align with him, yet seeing Bashem claim to follow the character of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), while at the same time belittling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), would likely abandon all interest in seeking the truth of Islam. Unless they have any capacity for sincerity and sound intellect, they would instead realize that Bashem happens to be an isolated individual who is disturbed and struggles with psychological issues.

• Does the Haddaadiyyah resemble al-Yahuud?

The Distorted Claim About Pregnancy Protection

As for Bashem's assertion that "If a woman cannot conceive a child, ayat of the Quraan must be written on a piece of paper and inserted in her organ", my friend says that the context of the citation is about: "Protection of pregnancy: If there is fear of miscarriage, or if pregnancy does not remain, write this verse and the previous verse, and tie them on/over the woman's womb. Insha'Allah, the pregnancy will be protected, and if it was not remaining, it will remain."

The Actual Urdu Wording and Its Meaning

The key wording is:

>عورت کے رحم پر باندھے

>"Tie it on/over the woman's womb."

It does not say: "insert it into her organ"

There is no wording like

>شرمگاہ

>فرج

>داخل کرے

or

>ڈالے

which would indicate inserting into the private part. The word رحم means womb/uterus, and "پر باندھے" means to tie/fasten on it, meaning externally. For Bashem to say people can use ChatGPT says a lot, and it explains why he comes with unfounded allegations.

• ChatGPT gave wildly inaccurate translations — to try and make users happy

A Fair Objection Versus a Fabricated Accusation

So the accusation is a distortion. A fair objection should be against ta'weez practices, but the claim that he said to insert Qur'anic Ayat into a woman's private organ is not supported by this screenshot.

This should not be assumed as though I am endorsing the works of the Deobandis, or that the errors are what were defended. No, here it is about being fair, even if we, the Ahlus-Sunnah, say that there is some deviance among the Deobandis, but it should be done with justice and knowledge.

The Scholarly Difference

The issue of writing Ayat on paper or cloth is something Ahlus-Sunnah scholars differed over in its ruling (حكم التميمة من القرآن). So, to project this as though it is all sorcery is a lie from the dajjaal Bashem. We can surely agree that it is best to avoid such a practice, or that the stronger view is that it is haram, but there is no need to go to extremes with generalizations, similar to saying that anything about Ahlul-Kalaam leans towards homosexuality.

Shaykh ibn Baz said: "As for when it is from the Qur'an or from known, good supplications, then the scholars differed concerning this. Some of them said it is permissible to hang it, and this is narrated from a group of the Salaf, who treated it like reciting over the sick person." (Source)

The context of the fatwa of shaykh ibn Baz is essentially the same as what shaykh ibn Jibreen said:

>The ruling on hanging amulets

>Q8: What is the ruling on hanging amulets, knowing that they are from Qur'anic Ayat?

>Answer: It has been narrated from some of the Salaf, such as ibn 'Amr ibn al-'Aas, 'Aa'ishah, and others, that hanging amulets is permissible if they are from the Qur'an or the Most Beautiful Names of Allah. They understood the prohibition in the hadiths to refer to shirk-based amulets.

>Others, such as ibn 'Abbaas, ibn Mas'ood, Hudhayfah, and ibn 'Ukaim, held that this is prohibited. This is the well-known narration from Ahmad, and this is the stronger view due to the generality of the hadiths, such as the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever hangs an amulet, may Allah not complete his affair for him."

>And his saying: "Whoever hangs an amulet has committed shirk."

>And his saying: "Whoever hangs something will be entrusted to it."

>It is reported from Sa'eed ibn Jubayr that he said: "Whoever cuts off an amulet from a person, it is as though he freed a slave."

>And from Ibraheem an-Nakha'i that he said: "They used to dislike all amulets, whether from the Qur'an or other than the Qur'an."

>Meaning: the companions of Ibn Mas'ood, such as 'Alqamah, al-Aswad, Masrooq, 'Ubaydah as-Salmaani, and others. Here, "dislike" means prohibition.

>Also, they are prohibited as a means of blocking the path, so that people do not expand the practice by hanging things that are not from the Qur'an.

>Also, the heart may become attached to them, while they consist of paper and cloth, or leather, thread, and the like. Whoever attaches himself to a created thing will be entrusted to it.

>Also, whoever hangs them on a child or the like will inevitably cause them to be treated disrespectfully, as the child may enter toilets, bathrooms, and filthy places while wearing them, which involves dishonoring the speech of Allah Most High.

>This is unlike ruqyah with the speech of Allah Most High, His Most Beautiful Names, or the transmitted supplications and awraad, for that is permissible due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "There is no harm in ruqyah so long as it does not involve shirk."

>Ruqyah is recitation with light spitting of a small amount of saliva, while choosing suitable verses to recite and considering the suitability of the reciter and the situation. And Allah knows best.

(Source)

Early Scholarly Parallels

In Zaad al-Ma'aad, ibnul-Qayyim cites from al-Khallaal that 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad said he saw his father, imam Ahmad, write for a woman whose childbirth had become difficult, using a clean white vessel or something clean. He also mentions another method where Ayat from Surah al-Inshiqaaq are written in a clean vessel, then:

>وتشرب منه الحامل، ويرش على بطنها

>"The pregnant woman drinks from it, and it is sprinkled on her stomach."

(Source)

If Bashem becomes more misguided and deviant, he would likely lie to his audience due to their ignorance of the Arabic language, claiming that this means "sprinkled on her organ".

Excuse me for the candidness, but we are dealing with a sick man. May Allah protect the Muslims from this vile human being.

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

The Murji', innovator Rabee' al-Madkhali himself did not even declare takfeer on Sayyid Qutub, but Abu an-Nouman Bashem (Wild_Extra_Dip) is yet again on his high horse, declaring takfeer on Sayyid Qutub.

This was addressed before in the article on the Summary of al-Madkhali's Principles, in the section "The Third Principle", detailing and dispelling the lies.

Notice, yet again, the contrast with Ahlus-Sunnah scholars. Here's shaykh ibn Baz:

>Shaykh: Among them are those like what has already been mentioned, for his era is recent. Ash-Shawkani's era is recent, in the thirteenth century. Among books authored later are works such as Fee Dhilaal al-Qur'an and the tafseer of ibn Sa'di, may Allah have mercy on him. These are beneficial books.

>Regarding the tafseer of Sayyid Qutub in particular, the believer should be cautious of the mistakes it contains, and take from it what it contains of good and benefit.

>Likewise, the rest of the tafsirs that contain such matters. In most cases, every book is not free from something, such as Tafseer al-Jalaalayn, Tafseer al-Qurtubi, and other books in which some interpretation occurs. The believer should be cautious of the mistakes they contain, ask the people of knowledge about what is unclear to him, and benefit from them in what agrees with what is correct.

>Presenter: Good, good. May Allah reward you with good. After mentioning some tafsirs, would you kindly mention some explanations of the Sunnah?

>Shaykh: Yes. There are many explanations, such as Fath al-Bari on al-Bukhaari, an-Nawawi's explanation of Muslim, and Nayl al-Awtaar by ash-Shawkani. These are good and beneficial books.

>Fath al-Majeed in creed by shaykh 'Abdur-Rahman ibn Hasan on Kitab at-Tawheed, and ibn Abi al-'Izz's explanation of al-'Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah, are all beneficial books and good explanations. Some of them are not free from certain things, such as Fath al-Bari and the explanation of Muslim, which are not free from some mistakes in creed according to the Ash'ari madhhab. But the student of knowledge rejects the mistake and is cautious of the mistake.

>Likewise, what may occur in Nayl al-Awtaar, Subul as-Salaam, the explanation of Buloogh al-Maraam, and other books. He takes what is correct from them, seeks assistance through them in gaining understanding of the religion, and leaves whatever mistake they contain when it becomes clear to him. And if something is unclear to him, he asks the people of knowledge and discusses it with the people of knowledge and with his colleagues who have insight and understanding, so that he avoids error and benefits from what agrees with what is correct. Yes.

(Source)

Also from the official site of shaykh ibn Baz:

>4. His Defense of Callers and Thinkers

>"This is prominent and clear in the shaykh's life. The callers, thinkers, and intellectuals were close to him, and he loved them, defended them, and felt their afflictions. This, namely loving the callers and defending them, also indicates sound intellectual moderation."

>Listen to Muhammad al-Majdhub as he mentions His Eminence's letter concerning the incident of Sayyid Qutub's execution. He says:

>"When the court of tyranny issued its decision to execute Sayyid Qutub and his brothers, the shaykh was overcome by what overcomes every believer of grief in such a calamity, which did not target the lives of the innocent condemned ones as much as it targeted weakening the status of Islam itself by terrorizing those who held fast to it, in order to discourage them from it.

>The shaykh assigned me that day to compose the appropriate telegram for this situation, so I wrote it with a pen dripping with fire, hatred, and protective jealousy. I brought it to him while I was fully certain that he would amend its tone to make it closer to the language of officials than to the language of warners. But he shattered all my expectations when he approved it entirely, and he did not stop there until he added to it the statement of Allah, Exalted is He, in Surah an-Nisaa':

>>وَمَنْ يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِنًا مُتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا

>>'And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him, cursed him, and prepared for him a great punishment.' [an-Nisa' 4:93]

>The telegram was sent that day, and it was, as I think, the only one from across the Islamic world on that occasion, bearing expressions harsher upon the tyrants than the sting of whips."

(Source)

Let's consider another scholar of Ahlus-Sunnah, shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen, and consider his care and responsibility, then compare how vile, ugly, and detestable the Haddaadiyyah all are in their attempts to disparage Sayyid Qutub:

>Sayyid Qutub in the Balance

>Question: Sayyid Qutub was a man who appeared in the Islamic world with a certain thought, and people differed regarding him between those who greatly praised him and those who criticized him very severely. We would like our shaykh to give us a sufficient clarification on this subject, and what the Muslim's position should be toward the man, because Sayyid has had an effect in the Islamic world, and he has works, books, and writings. So we would like a clarification from Your Eminence. May Allah bless you.

>Answer: I do not think that the dispute and quarrel among Muslim youth should be over a specific man, neither Sayyid Qutub nor anyone other than Sayyid Qutub. Rather, the dispute should be over the shar'i ruling.

>For example, we present a statement from the statements of Qutub or someone other than Qutub, and we say: Is this statement true or false? Then we examine it. If it is true, we accept it, and if it is false, we reject it.

>As for the quarrel and dispute among the youth, and the back and forth, being over a specific man, then this is wrong and a grave mistake.

>Sayyid Qutub is not infallible. Those above him among the scholars are not infallible, and those below him among the scholars are not infallible. Every person's statement may be accepted or rejected except the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family, whose statement must be accepted in every case.

>Therefore, I forbid the youth from making the center of their dispute and quarrels a specific person, whoever he may be. If disputes are in this manner, perhaps the opponent will nullify a truth said by this person, and perhaps he will support a falsehood said by this person. This is a great danger.

>That is because if a person becomes partisan to someone, and another becomes partisan against him, the one who is partisan against him will perhaps attribute to him what he did not say, interpret his words, or the like. And the other may perhaps deny that he said what he did say, or try to justify what he said of falsehood.

>So I say: We do not speak about individuals, and we do not become partisan to individuals. Sayyid Qutub has moved from the abode of action to the abode of recompense, and Allah, Exalted is He, will take him to account. The same applies to others from the people of knowledge.

>As for the truth, it must be accepted whether it came from Sayyid Qutub or from someone else. And falsehood must be rejected whether it came from Sayyid Qutub or from someone else. One must warn against any falsehood that was written or heard, whether from this one or that one, from any person.

>This is my advice to our brothers. Discussion, disputation, and back and forth should not be about a specific individual.

>As for Sayyid Qutub, my view of his works is that he is like others. They contain truth and falsehood. No one is infallible. But his works, for example, are not like the works of shaykh Muhammad Nasir ad-Deen al-Albani, for between the two there is a difference like that between the heaven and the earth. The works of the first man are things of a literary and general cultural nature, and he does not have what shaykh al-Albani has in verification and knowledge.

>Therefore, I hold that truth is taken from every person, and falsehood is rejected from every person. It is not appropriate for us, rather it is not permissible for us, to make the center of dispute, conflict, division, and unity the names of men.

(Source)

Other scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah:

>In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy.

>Sayyid Qutub, may Allah have mercy on him

>To the virtuous shaykh Hamood ibn 'Uqlaa' ash-Shu'aybi, may Allah preserve him:

>Many statements have been made about Sayyid Qutub, may Allah have mercy on him. Some absolve him of every mistake, while others place him among the wicked, rather even among the disbelievers. What is the truth regarding this?

>Answer:

>Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings of Allah be upon the one after whom there is no prophet.

>To proceed:

>The thinker and man of letters, Sayyid Qutub, may Allah have mercy on him, has many enemies. They differ in the manner of their criticism, its objectives, and its aims, but they agree upon shared interests. Before I expose the falsehood of the faults alleged by the critics and the attacks directed at Sayyid, may Allah have mercy on him, I will first clarify why Sayyid Qutub in particular is targeted, and who benefits from bringing him down.

>Sayyid, may Allah have mercy on him, is considered in his era one of the leading figures of the methodology of confronting the oppressors and rejecting them, and one of the outstanding callers to making people servants of their Lord and calling to the tawheed of referring judgment to Allah. He disturbed none but the beds of the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, such as Jamal Abdul-Naasir and his likes. No one rejoiced at his killing as they rejoiced. Those lackeys became extremely distressed by this hero, but when they thought they had killed him, behold, his blood revived his methodology and ignited enthusiasm in his words. His acceptance among the Muslims increased, and his books spread further, because by his truthfulness and boldness he demonstrated the strength of his methodology. So they sought to attack him again, desiring thereby to kill his methodology as well, but how could they ever do that?

>Thus, targeting Sayyid Qutub, may Allah have mercy on him, was not merely targeting his person. He is not the only scholar in whom slips have been found. He has mistakes, and we do not deny them. However, the attack against him is not to bring him down as an individual, for he has already gone forth to his Lord, and we ask Allah to grant him martyrdom. Rather, what still troubles his enemies and their followers is his methodology, which they fear may spread among the children of the Muslims.

>When I hear attacks against Sayyid Qutub, may Allah have mercy on him, I am not surprised, due to the statement of Allah, Exalted is He:

>>وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَا لِكُلِّ نَبِيٍّ

>>"And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy."

>Everyone who possesses some light from prophethood also has enemies from the people of falsehood in proportion to what he possesses of the inheritance of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). So what harm can the attacks of attackers do to Sayyid? Rather, they are an elevation for him and an increase in his good deeds.

>What is surprising, however, is the action of those people who claim to follow the truth, yet they give short measure and do not weigh with a just scale, while Allah says:

>>وَيْلٌ لِّلْمُطَفِّفِينَ الَّذِينَ إِذَا اكْتَالُوا عَلَى النَّاسِ يَسْتَوْفُونَ وَإِذَا كَالُوهُمْ أَو وَّزَنُوهُمْ يُخْسِرُونَ

>>"Woe to those who give less, those who, when they take a measure from people, take in full, but when they give by measure or by weight to them, they cause loss."

>When these people want to praise someone who has more criticisms against him than Sayyid by many times, they say their famous statement: "His mistakes are submerged in the ocean of his good deeds." They also say: "If water reaches two qullahs, it does not carry impurity," and other such statements. But when they want to disparage another, like Sayyid, may Allah have mercy on him, who is considered a reviver in the matter of "judgment belongs only to Allah," they follow the path of the Khawaarij with him and declare him a disbeliever due to sins and slips.

>We do not claim infallibility from error for Sayyid, may Allah have mercy on him. Rather, we say that he has mistakes, and this is not the place to detail them. However, they do not undermine the foundation of his da'wah and methodology, just as others had mistakes that did not undermine their status. For example, Ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi, Ibn al-Jawzi, and Ibn Hazm had mistakes in creed, yet their mistakes did not cause anyone from the ummah or its leading figures to refrain from benefiting from them, deprive them of their rights, or deny their virtues. They are imams except in what they erred in. This is the case with Sayyid, may Allah have mercy on him. His mistakes do not undermine the foundation of his methodology and his da'wah to the tawhid of hakimiyyah and making people servants of their Lord.

>The principle that must be established in such cases is what is derived from the statement of Allah, Exalted is He:

>>يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ ۖ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِن نَّفْعِهِمَا

>>"They ask you about wine and gambling. Say: In them is great sin and benefits for people, but their sin is greater than their benefit."

>So whoever fulfills what must be fulfilled of the foundation of the religion, the rest of his methodology is then examined. If his error is greater than his correctness, and his evil outweighs his benefit, then his statement is neglected, his books are folded away, and they are not narrated.

>Based on this, the decisive statement regarding Sayyid, may Allah have mercy on him, is that his mistakes are submerged beside his virtues and his defense of "Laa ilaaha illa Allah", especially since he affirmed the foundations of the correct creed, even though there are some criticisms against him and expressions he used that we do not agree with, may Allah have mercy on him.

>In conclusion, I can only mention that I consider Sayyid, and Allah is his Reckoner, to be included in the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The master of martyrs is Hamzah, and a man who stood before an oppressive ruler, commanded him and forbade him, so he killed him." We consider that Sayyid, may Allah have mercy on him, fulfilled that condition, as he spoke a word of truth before an oppressive ruler, so he killed him.

>I will quote a statement of his, may Allah have mercy on him, shortly before his execution, when one of the officers was amazed at Sayyid Qutub's joy and happiness upon hearing the news that he had been sentenced to execution, "martyrdom". The officer was astonished that he did not become sad, depressed, broken, or despondent, so he asked him: "You believe that you will be a martyr, so what does martyr mean to you?" He, may Allah have mercy on him, answered: "The martyr is the one who presents a testimony from his soul and blood that the religion of Allah is dearer to him than his life. Therefore, he sacrifices his soul and life in defense of the religion of Allah."

>He, may Allah have mercy on him, has positions and statements which no one acquainted with the truth would doubt came from a heart filled with love for Allah, love for His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and love of sacrificing for His religion. We ask Allah to have mercy on us, pardon us, and pardon him.

>May Allah send peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions.

>Said by:

>Hamood ibn 'Uqlaa' ash-Shu'aybi

>16/5/1421 AH.

(Source)

>Fatwa of His Eminence Shaykh Abdullah ibn Jibreen regarding Sayyid Qutub and Hasan al-Banna

>Some youth declare shaykh Sayyid Qutub to be an innovator and forbid reading his books. They also say the same about Hasan al-Banna, and they say about some scholars that they are Khawaarij. Their proof is that they are clarifying mistakes to the people, while they are still students until now. I hope for an answer so that doubt may be removed from us and from others, so that this matter does not become widespread.

>Answer:

>Praise be to Allah alone. To proceed:

>It is not permissible to declare Muslims to be innovators or sinners, due to the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever says to his brother, 'O enemy of Allah,' while he is not such, it returns upon him." And in the hadith: "Whoever declares a Muslim to be a disbeliever, then one of the two has returned with it." And in the hadith: "A man passed by another man while he was committing a sin and said, 'By Allah, Allah will not forgive you.' So He said: 'Who is this who swears by Me that I will not forgive so-and-so? Indeed, I have forgiven him and nullified your deeds.'"

>Then I say: Sayyid Qutub and Hasan al-Banna are from the scholars of the Muslims and from the people of da'wah. Allah gave victory through them and guided, through their da'wah, many people. They have efforts that cannot be denied. For this reason, shaykh 'Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz interceded for Sayyid Qutub when execution had been decided for him, and he was gentle in his intercession, but his intercession was not accepted by the president Jamal, may he receive from Allah what he deserves.

>When each of them was killed, each one was called a martyr, because he was killed unjustly. Both the elite and the general public testified to this, and it was published in newspapers and books without objection. Then the scholars received their books, and Allah brought benefit through them. No one attacked them for more than twenty years.

>And if something like that occurred from them, then the likes of an-Nawawi, as-Suyooti, Ibn al-Jawzi, ibn 'Atiyyah, al-Khattaabi, al-Qastallani, and many others also had such matters. I read what shaykh Rabee' al-Madkhali wrote in refutation of Sayyid Qutub, and I saw that he placed headings for what was not reality. Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd, may Allah preserve him, refuted him. Likewise, he made accusations against shaykh 'Abdur-Rahman and made his words into misleading errors, despite his long companionship with him without objection.

>"The eye of approval is dull to every fault, but the eye of displeasure reveals the flaws."

>Said and dictated by:

>'Abdullah ibn 'Abdur-Rahman ibn Jibreen.

(Source)

Abu an-Nouman Bashem (Wild_Extra_Dip) proves why he is dajjaalic: he lies against shaykh Mahmood Shaakir. (Source) Even the footnote which Bashem referenced states this!

>(1) Ustadh Shaakir responds to what Sayyid Qutub wrote regarding some of the Companions. Sayyid Qutub did not respond to ustadh Shaakir's criticism, but one of Sayyid Qutub's friends, ustadh Muhammad Rajab al-Bayyumi, took it upon himself to respond to him. See volume one, pp. 567-579.

Let's see what shaykh Mahmood says:

>I Apologize to You...!

>I write these words with a saddened soul because of something I committed, when it would have been more fitting for me to be patient so that I would not slip in it.

>That is because I read a statement in one of the magazines in which its writer said:

>"If the poor person is denied his right, then he has the right to fight for it, because Allah commands fighting the transgressors:

>>وَإِنْ طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِنْ بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَى فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّى تَفِيءَ إِلَى أَمْرِ اللَّهِ

>>'And if two groups of believers fight, then make peace between them. But if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight the one that transgresses until it returns to the command of Allah.'

>There is no doubt that the one who withholds a right is a transgressor."

>Hastiness and bad suspicion carried me away, so I thought the writer had used the Ayah as evidence in a place where it did not belong. My speech about the man became bad among groups of people, since it had only occurred to me that the Ayah concerns two groups of believers fighting, then one of the two groups transgressing against the other.

>When night settled upon me yesterday, Saturday, 12 Jumada al-Akhirah, 1371 AH, something stirred in my heart, though I did not know what it was. It kept pressing upon me that in these days I had earned a sin from whose punishment I feared I might not escape.

>The end of this Ayah rose before my eyes:

>>إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

>>"Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly."

>So I saw that justice and fairness required me to return to its tafseer and to the statements of the imams regarding fighting the people of transgression. I then learned what I had not known: that some of them had used it as evidence for something like what the virtuous writer used it for, though their method of deriving evidence had a path different from his, and a restriction where he had left it unrestricted.

>Then I realized that I had wronged him with a wrong that was not fitting. Since that hour, I have continued seeking Allah's forgiveness for what I neglected and for the bad words that passed over my tongue, and I sought forgiveness for him for what I had done wrong to him in his absence.

>When I read ar-Risaalah on the morning after that night, Sunday, 13 Jumada al-Akhirah, I was almost unable to take up the pen again to respond to the virtuous writer in his article, "Yes... the Possessor of Intellect Suffers." (1) But I found that the way had been made easy for me to apologize for a sin I had earned by speaking ill of a man in his absence, due to the very same disease that I had forbidden the ustadh from, namely hastiness. I only intended to forbid him from it because of the good it contains for him and for me, Allah willing.

>(*) ar-Risaalah, twentieth year, issue 976, March 1952, pp. 304-305.

>(1) Majallat ar-Risaalah, twentieth year, issue 975, March 1952, pp. 273-274. The writer is ustadh Muhammad Rajab al-Bayyumi.

(Source)

Shaykh Mahmood Shaakir "also opposed, at that time, the decision to execute Sayyid Qutub." (Source)

The Haddaadiyyah are yet again attempting to misuse and abuse the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, as though their scholarly criticisms amount to the disparagement that the Haddaadiyyah are engaging in. The truth is clear, alhamdulillah, as scholarly criticism is constructive.

All this yet again proves that the Haddaadiyyah attempt to mask their deviance by ignoring how Ahlus-Sunnah scholars addressed these issues. Ambiguity in the non-scholarly writings of Sayyid Qutub is expected, as he was not a mujtahid. However, they are grasping at straws, as though the mistakes of Sayyid Qutub are far worse than the belittlement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). We haven't forgotten that.

• Bashem's Belittlement of the Prophet ﷺ Under the Claim of Defense!

>In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy.

>Praise be to Allah, and He is sufficient. Peace be upon His servants whom He has chosen, especially our master Muhammad, the chosen one, and upon his family, his companions, and whoever follows his guidance.

>To proceed:

>The weak servant, Muhammad Shafee' ad-Deobandi, Indian by birth and Pakistani by migration, says:

>I narrate the whole of Saheeh al-Imam Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Bukhaari from the haafidh of his age, the eminent shaykh, Sayyid Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri, through reading to him while I was listening; and he narrates it from shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud Hasan, and he from Mawlana Muhammad Qaasim an-Nanotwi and Mawlana Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, both of them from the shaykh, imam and proof, Shah Abdul-Ghani, and he from his father, shaykh Abu Sa'id, and he from Shah Muhammad Ishaq ad-Dahlawi, and he from the learned authority of the ummah, Shah 'Abdul-'Aziz ad-Dahlawi.

>Muhammad Anwar Shah also narrates it by ijaazah from the shaykh and proof, Mawlana Ahmad Ali al-Muhaddith ash-Saharanpuri, the author of the annotations on Saheeh al-Bukhaari, from Shah Muhammad Ishaq al-Dahlawi, from Shah 'Abdul-'Aziz, from his father, the shaykh, imam and proof, Shah Wali Allah ad-Dahlawi, from shaykh Abu Taahir al-Madani, from his father shaykh Ibrahim al-Kurdi, from shaykh Ahmad al-Qushashi, from Ahmad ibn 'Abdul-Quddus ash-Shatawi, from shaykh Shams ad-Deen ar-Ramli, from shaykh Zayn ad-Deen Zakariyya al-Ansari, from shaykh al-Haafidh ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, from Ibrahim ibn Ahmad al-Nufi, from shaykh Abu al-Waqt 'Abdul-Awwal ibn Isa as-Sijzi al-Harawi, from shaykh Abu al-Hasan 'Abdur-Rahman ibn Muzaffar ad-Dawudi, from Abu Muhammad 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad as-Sarakhsi, from Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Bukhaari.

>Likewise, I narrate the whole of al-Jaami' of at-Tirmidhi, except for a small portion of its second volume, through the aforementioned chain up to Zayn ad-Deen Zakariyya al-Ansari, and he from shaykh Umar al-Maraghi, from Fakhr ibn al-Bukhaari, from 'Umar ibn Tabarzad al-Baghdadi, who said: Abu al-Fath 'Abdul-Malik ibn 'Abdullah ibn Abi Sahl al-Harawi al-Karrukhi informed us. He said: The ascetic judge Abu 'Aamir Muhammad ibn al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad al-Azdi and the shaykh Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn 'Abdus-Samad ibn Abi al-Fadl Abi al-Haamid al-Furji, may Allah have mercy on them, informed us through reading to them while I was listening. They said: Abu Muhammad 'Abdul-Jabbaar ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abd ibn Ayy al-Jarami al-Marwazi al-Marzubani informed us through reading to them. He said: Abu al-'Abbaas Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Mahmud ibn Fudayl al-Mahbubi informed us. He said: Abu 'Isa Muhammad ibn 'Isa ibn Sawrah ibn Musa at-Tirmidhi al-Haafidh informed us, may Allah show him mercy.

>The weak servant Muhammad Shafi' said:

>I narrate the whole of Saheeh al-Imam Muslim from the shaykhul-Islam of Pakistan, Mawlana Shabeer Ahmad, author of Fath al-Mulhim fi Sharh Muslim, through reading to him while I was listening; and he narrates it from his shaykh, shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud Hasan, through the chain mentioned earlier.

>I narrate Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan an-Nasaa'i, and two sections from the second volume of Jaami' at-Tirmidhi from shaykh Mawlana Asghar Husayn, through reading to him while I was listening; and he narrates them from his shaykh, the aforementioned shaykh al-Hind, through the previous chain.

>I narrate al-Muwatta' according to the narration of Yahya ibn Yahya, and that of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and Ma'ani al-Athar of al-Tahawi, from shaykh Mufti 'Aziz ar-Rahman, through reading to him while I was listening; and he narrates them from his shaykh Mawlana Muhammad Ya'qub an-Nanotwi, from shaykh 'Abdul-Ghani ad-Dahlawi, through the previous chain.

>Also, our shaykh the mufti narrates the six foundational books and all of al-Muwatta' with connected chains through an ijaazah from shaykh Fadl ar-Rahman al-Ganj Muradabadi, and he from Shah 'Abdul-'Aziz ad-Dahlawi, from his father, the musnid of his time, Shah Wali Allah ad-Dahlawi.

>I also narrate the six books and al-Muwatta' through the reading of their selected portions to Mawlana Muhammad Ashraf 'Ali ath-Thanawi, and he read them to shaykh Muhammad Ya'qub an-Nanotwi, and he to the aforementioned Mawlana Shah 'Abdul-Ghani, may Allah the Exalted have mercy on him.

>When Allah, Exalted is He, granted me the opportunity to visit the Illuminated City of Madinah in Muharram of the year 1387 AH, I visited the great scholar shaykh 'Abdul-'Aziz ibn Baz, the vice-president of the university there. Despite the lofty rank he possesses in knowledge and virtue, he asked me to grant him ijaazah to narrate hadith through everything that it is permissible for me to narrate. So I granted him ijaazah through the aforementioned chains, hoping for the attainment of its blessing. May Allah prolong his life in spreading knowledge and following the Sunnah of al-Mustafa (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in health and well-being.

>The servant:

>Muhammad Shafee'

>Servant of Daar al-'Uloom, Karachi, Pakistan.

>Source: The Correspondence Exchanged Between Shaykh Ibn Baz and the Scholars, p. 651.

From the official website of shaykh ibn Baz:

• إجازة الشيخ محمد شفيع للشيخ عبدالعزيز في الحديث وثنائه عليه

The lengthy attempt to lie has turned into Abu an-Nouman Bashem (Wild_Extra_Dip) believing he is speaking the truth, but it is ironic that this is a true statement:

>... the innovators are known for lying, lying includes fabricating this in the religion or denying facts of it

The rest are meaningless attempts to bamboozle the readers with the illusion of depth, but he exposed himself when the surface-level source came from the official site of shaykh ibn Baz. Alhamdulillah.

My shaykh was a student of shaykh ibn Baz. For Bashem, in an attempt to feel emboldened as though he defends shaykh ibn Baz, to claim he had been fooled by the shaykh he received ijaazah from is a lie against shaykh ibn Baz, his students, the people who faithfully and truthfully worked on the site of shaykh ibn Baz, and the publishers.

No one ever claimed this except this despicable dajjaalic, vile human.

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

This is a response to:

• https://old.reddit.com/r/Modajana/comments/1ua8rmf/honest_question_answered_dishonestly_by_the/

Introduction: Misusing the Names of Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars

The innovators, false Sunni claimants, liars against Ahlus-Sunnah by projecting Ahlus-Sunnah to be "Salafis", and misusers and abusers of the names of Ahlus-Sunnah scholars: why and how, you would wonder, they reference the names despite not sharing the same foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah.

Imam al-Ghazali and the Three Stages

The issue about imam al-Ghazali is exactly as shaykh Husaam al-Humaydah says, as he followed up on a video, saying that he didn't clarify which stage he spoke against al-Ghazali in, as he went through three stages.

Mentioning shaykh Husaam in this does not even favor Bashem, as Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have already clarified the matter about al-Ghazali, especially the second stage he was in and how some Maalikiyyah declared takfeer on him. (Source) Yet other great scholars, like shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, the one who also has the most knowledge in the area of 'Ilm al-Kalaam by showing its falsehood, when speaking about al-Ghazali, talked about the third stage, hence not declaring takfeer on him.

Ibn Taymiyyah on al-Ghazali's Final Stage

>"Likewise, Abu Haamid [al-Ghazali], toward the end of his life, ended up in a state of suspension and perplexity after studying the methods available to him from the Ahlul-Kalaam and philosophers, and after following what had become clear to him from the paths of worship, self-discipline, and asceticism. Then, in his final years, he devoted himself to hadith, particularly al-Bukhaari and Muslim."

(Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, vol. 5, p. 269)

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah also clarified that al-Ghazali returned to the path of the Ahlul-Hadith. (Source)

In another place, he said:

>"For this reason, it became clear to him at the end of his life that the path of the Sufis would not achieve his objective, so he sought guidance through the path of the Prophetic narrations. He began occupying himself with al-Bukhaari and Muslim, and he died during that period in the best of his states."

(Sharh al-'Aqeedah al-Asfahaaniyyah, p. 205)

The Maaliki Takfeer and the Balance of Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars

This ijtihaad of some scholars declaring al-Ghazali a zindeeq should not surprise anyone. However, to treat it as though it is the final conclusion, this is how the Haddaadiyyah have misused the name of shaykh Husaam.

Sihr, Hidden Matters, and the Principles of Takfeer

It should also be made clear that sihr is of many types and forms, which is clear from Kitaab at-Tawheed by shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. Elsewhere, shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab even clarified that some sihr is among the hidden matters, which does not warrant declared takfeer:

>"The one upon whom the proof has not been established is the one who is newly entered into Islam, or the one who grew up in a distant desert region, or when it is a hidden matter (مسألة خفية), such as as-sarf and al-'atf. Such a person is not declared takfeer until he is made aware."

(Ar-Rasaa'il ash-Shakhsiyyah, ar-Risaalah as-Saadisah wath-Thalaathoon: Risaalatuhu ila al-Ikhwaan, p. 244)

I mentioned this because it is often tied to al-Ghazali and some scholars, like those in Mauritania, who mistakenly believe that sihr can be used against sihr. This is where the Haddaadiyyah might attempt to argue as though sihr is as clear as the sun, or that some from Ahlus-Sunnah misunderstood this matter.

Exposing the Surface-Level Arguments of the Haddaadiyyah

This should clarify and dispel the false arguments of the Haddaadiyyah, as though the illusion of what they say has any depth, despite them being all surface level but projected to be a grand argument. We have seen this type of misguidance by the Madkhaliyyah sect, which many from the Haddaadiyyah had unknowingly adopted, the same way they were oblivious to adopting the Kalaamiyyah arguments as the basis of declaring the Ahlul-Kalaam as disbelievers. (Source) The irony of ironies, but the blind remain blind.

Bashem, al-Madkhali's Principles, and the Misuse of ash-Shaatibi

See "The Second Principle" in the article titled "Summary of al-Madkhali's Principles", which Bashem perpetuates.

It is also ironic that Bashem references imam ash-Shaatibi in an attempt to assert as though there was any unrestricted praise of an innovator, while projecting that against imam al-Ghazali. This again exposes their misuse of scholars, appealing to teenagers and taking advantage of their ignorance of the Arabic language, hence arguing with an illusion of understanding, despite it being a grave misconception and an exposé of their following their whims and desires.

No standard, no principle, and no conformity or alignment with any contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah scholar, except to bamboozle you, as though mentioning the name of shaykh Husaam or any other scholar proves anything.

The Justice of Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars Toward al-Ghazali

This is why, when imam adh-Dhahabi spoke about the biography of al-Ghazali, he commented on some of the Maalikiyyah's harsh words against al-Ghazali, stating: "Then this judge became obscene, reviled, made takfeer, and went to excess. We seek refuge with Allah from desires." (Source)

How just the Ahlus-Sunnah scholars are. They knew the stages that al-Ghazali went through, highlighted them, and asserted that his previous views were misguided, but they also described him with knowledge, with no vileness toward his person. This greatly contrasts with the Haddaadiyyah.

Shaykh Husaam, the Hanafi Madhhab, and Haddaadi Contradictions

Hence, they won't have anything to say against shaykh Husaam being a Hanafi, promoting and teaching others the madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah, and how great it is. (Source) Yet you will find the Haddaadiyyah being foul, vile, and disparaging against the madhhab.

Shaykh Husaam on Affiliation, Fisq, and Innovation

The contrast between shaykh Husaam and the Haddaadiyyah sect is very clear, as he answered the question about whether affiliation with fisq or innovation necessarily makes the person a faasiq or an innovator.

>"There is a very pressing question, and this question, in reality, reflects the extent of people's confusion regarding the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, especially the principles of tabdee'. Many students and brothers, may Allah guide them, deal with the rulings of tabdee' and tafseeq as though they are emotional rulings, and as though emotional reactions have a role in determining the meanings of these labels and rulings... I will give you an example from the speech of shaykhul-Islam: how an innovation does not necessarily mean that the one who commits it is a faasiq, and how a person may be Sunni yet fall into an innovation...

He then quoted ibn Taymiyyah stating:

>As for those among them who affirm what is in the book al-Ibaanah, which al-Ash'ari authored at the end of his life, and who did not manifest any statement contradicting that, then such a person is counted among Ahlus-Sunnah. However, merely affiliating oneself with al-Ash'ari is an innovation, especially since doing so gives the impression of approval toward everyone who affiliates with this ascription, and through that, doors of evil are opened.

(Majmoo' al-Fatawa, vol. 6, p. 216)

This is the Ahlus-Sunnah position, which shaykh Husaam beautifully explained:

• Is Everyone Affiliated with Ash'arism an Innovator?

Ibn Taymiyyah on General and Specific Takfeer

Consider the contrast between shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and how the Haddaadiyyah consider al-Jahmiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah stated from pages 347 to 350 in Majmoo' al-Fataawa:

>However, the point here is that the positions of the imams are built upon this distinction between the general category and the specific individual. Because of this, a group narrated from them that there was disagreement regarding this, but they did not understand the depth of their statement.

>One group narrates from Ahmad two unrestricted reports regarding the takfeer of the people of innovation, to the extent that they make the disagreement include the takfeer of the Murji'ah and the Shi'ah who prefer Ali, and they may even give preference to declaring them disbelievers and eternally in the Fire. This is not the position of Ahmad, nor of any of the imams of Islam. Rather, his statement does not differ that he did not declare the Murji'ah disbelievers, those who say, "Eemaan is statement without action," nor did he declare disbelievers those who prefer Ali over Uthmaan. Rather, his explicit texts show refraining from making takfeer of the Khawaarij, the Qadariyyah, and others.

>He would only declare the Jahmiyyah disbelievers, those who denied the names and attributes of Allah, because the contradiction of their statements to what the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, came with was obvious and clear, and because the reality of their statement was ta'teel of the Creator. He had been tested by them until he came to know the reality of their affair, and that it revolved around ta'teel. The takfeer of the Jahmiyyah is well known from the Salaf and the imams.

>However, he did not declare their specific individuals disbelievers. The one who calls to a statement is greater than the one who merely says it, the one who punishes his opponent is greater than the one who merely calls to it, and the one who declares his opponent a disbeliever is greater than the one who merely punishes him.

>Despite this, those who were among the rulers used to hold the statement of the Jahmiyyah, saying that the Qur'an is created, that Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter, and other such things. They called the people to this, tested them concerning it, punished them if they did not respond to them, and declared those who did not respond to them disbelievers. They would even seize a prisoner and not release him until he affirmed the statement of the Jahmiyyah that the Qur'an is created and other such matters. They would not appoint anyone to office, nor give anyone provision from the public treasury, except to those who said this.

>Despite this, imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, asked Allah to have mercy on them and sought forgiveness for them, because he knew that it had not been made clear to them that they were denying the Messenger and rejecting what he came with. Rather, they interpreted, erred, and blindly followed those who said that to them.

>Likewise, when ash-Shaafi'ee said to Hafs al-Fard, when he said, "The Qur'an is created," "You have disbelieved in Allah, the Magnificent," he was clarifying to him that this statement is disbelief. He did not rule that Hafs had apostatized merely because of that, because the proof by which he would become a disbeliever had not become clear to him. Had he believed that he was an apostate, he would have sought to have him killed. He also explicitly stated in his books that the testimony of the people of desires is accepted, and that prayer behind them is valid.

>Likewise, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee, and Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on them, said regarding the Qadari: "If he denies the knowledge of Allah, he has disbelieved." The wording of some of them was: "Debate the Qadariyyah with knowledge. If they affirm it, they are defeated, and if they deny it, they have disbelieved." Ahmad was asked about the Qadari: "Does he disbelieve?" He said: "If he denies knowledge, he has disbelieved." In that case, the one who denies knowledge is of the same type as the Jahmiyyah.

>As for killing the caller to innovations, he may be killed in order to restrain his harm from the people, just as the highway robber is killed. Even if the matter itself is not disbelief, not everyone whom it is commanded to kill is killed because of apostasy. Based on this, the killing of Ghaylaan al-Qadari and others may have been from this angle.

>These issues are discussed in detail elsewhere. We have only pointed them out here as a reminder.

(Source)

Contemporary Scholars and the Same Ahlus-Sunnah Principle

This exactly aligns with the contemporary scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, which even shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr also clarified in his explanation of al-'Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah, in the very introduction! (Source)

But no, the Haddaadiyyah won't admit to this, as it will only reveal what I have been saying all along: they misuse the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah despite those very scholars not conforming to their lies, manipulations, and misapplications.

Principles, Impediments, and Haddaadi Misapplications

No, takfeer, just like tabdee', has its principles and impediments. There is also a difference between unrestricted takfeer and specified takfeer. It is ironic that the Haddaadiyyah accuse us of not being able to be detailed and contextual, yet when we do that, they instead resort to disparaging your character and your person, and accuse you of vileness.

They resemble the Christian preachers in this ugly behavior: when their Bible is shown to be distorted and to have contradictions, and when we show the contradictions of the Haddaadiyyah, they vomit at you with vileness.

Refuting the Refutation Regarding the Sahaabi Who Viewed Alcohol as Permissible

Qudaamah ibn Madh'oon erred by interpreting Surah al-Maa'idah 5:93 as allowing wine for those with eemaan and righteous deeds. 'Umar corrected his ta'weel and punished him with the hadd, while the scholars used this incident as evidence that a person who falls into istihlaal due to ta'weel or shubhah is not declared kaafir individually until the matter is clarified, the shubhah is removed, and he persists after that. (Source)

This dajjaalic liar, Bashem, asserted:

>There are no narrations mentioning that Qudamah may Allaah be pleased with him viewed alcohol as halal

Yet, the very evidence he used exactly affirms this. What did 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) say?

>"أخطأت التأويل يا قدامة، إذا اتقيت الله اجتنبت ما حرم الله"

>"You have erred in interpretation, O Qudaamah. If you feared Allah, you would have avoided what Allah forbade."

From the principle of "مفهوم المخالفة", this means that Qudaamah viewed it as halal! Rather, there is an explicit narration affirming the wording of considering it halal!

>A group of people from ash-Shaam drank wine, and Yazeed ibn Abi Sufyan was in charge over them at that time. They said, "It is lawful," and they interpreted the Ayah...

(Source)

And what did shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah say concerning this matter?

>For this reason, the people of knowledge and Sunnah do not declare those who oppose them to be disbelievers, even if that opponent declares them to be disbelievers, because disbelief is a legal ruling. A person does not have the right to punish with its like, just as if someone lied against you or committed fornication with your family, you do not have the right to lie against him or commit fornication with his family, because lying and fornication are forbidden due to the right of Allah.

>Likewise, takfeer is the right of Allah, so no one is declared a disbeliever except whom Allah and His Messenger have declared to be a disbeliever.

>Also, declaring a specific individual to be a disbeliever, and the permissibility of killing him, depends on the prophetic proof reaching him, the proof which makes one who opposes it a disbeliever. Otherwise, not everyone who is ignorant of something from the religion is declared a disbeliever.

>For this reason, when a group of the Companions and Successors, such as Qudamah ibn Madh'oon and his companions, deemed drinking wine lawful and thought that it was permitted for one who did righteous deeds, based on what they understood from the verse in al-Maa'idah, the scholars among the Companions, such as 'Umar, 'Ali, and others, agreed that they should be asked to repent. If they persisted in deeming it lawful, they would be disbelievers, and if they acknowledged it, they would be flogged.

>So they did not declare them disbelievers for deeming it lawful at the outset, due to the doubt that had arisen for them, until the truth became clear to them. Then, if they persisted in denial, they would be disbelievers.

(Al-Istighathah fi al-Radd 'ala al-Bakri, pp. 379-380)

Did anyone else say the same thing before ibn Taymiyyah? Surely, this again shows how Bashem is pretentious, claiming to uphold imam Ahmad and his madhhab, asserting the works of ibn Qudaamah. Yet what did the imam say?:

>It is well known from the doctrine of the Khawaarij that they declared many of the Companions, and those who came after them, to be disbelievers; deemed their blood and wealth lawful; and believed that killing them was a means of drawing near to their Lord. Despite this, the jurists did not rule them to be disbelievers, due to their interpretation.

>The same ruling is applied to every forbidden matter that is deemed lawful through an interpretation like this.

>It has been narrated that Qudamah ibn Madh'oon drank wine while deeming it lawful, so 'Umar carried out the hadd punishment on him and did not declare him a disbeliever.

>Likewise, Abu Jandal ibn Suhayl and a group with him drank wine in ash-Shaam while deeming it lawful, using as evidence the statement of Allah Most High:

>>لَيْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا طَعِمُوا

>>"There is no blame upon those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they have consumed..." (Al-Maa'idah 5:93)

>They were not declared disbelievers. Rather, they were informed of its prohibition, so they repented and the hadd punishment was carried out on them. Thus, whoever is like them is given the same ruling as them.

>Likewise, every person who is ignorant of something that it is possible for him to be ignorant of is not judged to be a disbeliever until he comes to know that matter, the doubt is removed from him, and he then deems it lawful after that.

>Ahmad said: "Whoever says, 'Wine is lawful,' is a disbeliever. He is asked to repent; if he repents, then so, otherwise his neck is struck."

>This is understood to refer to one for whom the prohibition of wine would not be obscure, due to what we have mentioned.

>As for one who eats pork, or carrion, or drinks wine, he is not judged to have apostatized merely because of that, whether he did it in the abode of war or the abode of Islam, because it is possible that he did it while believing it to be forbidden, just as a person may commit other forbidden acts.

(Al-Mughni, Kitaab al-Murtadd, vol. 12, pp. 276-277)

No Verification, No Precedent, Only Baseless Claims

Then the dajjaalic liar said:

>Disagreement with the consensus that Nawawi (and a bunch of other zanadiqa) are Muslim (as if consensus of later scholars is not agreeable, as if there can be a consensus on an individual Ashari's Islam?)

It's interesting that he doesn't confirm what he references before posting them, as the very channel he attempted to use to prove something also refutes Muhammad ibn Shams! (Source) Wow. These people are the most pretentious students and the weakest in verifying sources.

Relevant:

• The Haddaadiyyah's Resemblance to the Mu'tazilah and Their Path of Iblees

As they are ignorantly adopting the madhhab of adh-Dhaahiriyyah in their rejection of consensus, the more they attempt to argue or prove something, the more they end up exposing themselves! Alhamdulillah.

The matter about imam an-Nawawi has already been clarified in our sub and elsewhere. Rather, I should say, the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah clarified this before, but Bashem blindly follows Muhammad ibn Shams, the ever-changing chameleon.

The rest is nonsense, as he has no precedent from any single scholar, except to come with baseless allegations, false projections, and words devoid of any meaning.

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

The vile Haddaadi, the one known for his belittlement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the one who calls others to the path of Iblees, as shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd described the likes of him, failed in his attempt to disparage imam ibn al-'Imaad for quoting from ibn 'Arabi the zindeeq.

Because the Haddaadi is unread in how books of taareekh are written, projecting false notions onto scholars in ways for which he has no precedence whatsoever, while instead putting himself ahead of the scholars, he does not realize his failure. Rather, it only inadvertently exposes him.

Did the scholars encompass all knowledge? Are they infallible? No. Some issues can be obscure and not even clear, which even shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah admits on the issue of ibn 'Arabi, stating:

>These people deceived the wayfarers regarding tawheed, which Allah Most High revealed in the books and with which He sent the messengers, by replacing it with unionism, which they named tawheed. Its reality is the denial of the Maker and the rejection of the Creator.

>In the past, I had been among those who held a good opinion of ibn 'Arabi and regarded him highly, because of the benefits I saw in his books, such as his words in many parts of al-Futuhaat, al-Kunnah, al-Muhkam al-Marboot, ad-Durrah al-Faakhirah, Mataali' al-Nujoom, and the like. At that time, we had not yet come to know the reality of his intent, nor had we studied al-Fusoos and similar works.

>We used to gather with our brothers for Allah's sake, seeking the truth, following it, and uncovering the reality of the path. Then, when the matter became clear, we knew what was obligatory upon us.

(Source)

Yet, the context of imam ibn al-'Imaad did not even have any focal point on ibn 'Arabi, but instead on another person, as this is a work of biographical encyclopaedia similar to imam adh-Dhahabi's Siyar. This is also no different from how imam adh-Dhahabi approached the biography of ibn 'Arabi, which the Madaakhilah are also ignorant of when it comes to how scholars of history approach the biographies of individuals, where they bring both the good and the bad, which is to say that they approach them with knowledge and justice. (See "The Second Principle" here: https://student.faith/articles/al-madkhali.html)

Consider the Siyar of imam adh-Dhahabi on ibn 'Arabi:

>Al-'Allaamah, author of many works, Muhyi ad-Deen Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Taa'i al-Haatimi al-Mursi ibn al-'Arabi, resident of Damascus.

>He mentioned that he heard from ibn Bashkuwal and ibn Saaf, and that he heard in Makkah from Zaahir ibn Rustum, in Damascus from ibn al-Harastani, and in Baghdad. He lived in ar-Rum for a period. He was intelligent and had much knowledge. He wrote official correspondence for some of the rulers in the Maghrib, then turned to asceticism, isolated himself, devoted himself to worship and solitude, traveled, detached himself, went to Tihaamah and Najd, practiced retreats, and wrote a great deal concerning the Sufism of the people of unity.

>Among the worst of his writings is the book al-Fusoos. If there is no kufr in it, then there is no kufr in the world. We ask Allah for pardon and salvation. Help is sought from Allah.

>A group magnified him and went to great lengths in interpreting what came from him with far-fetched possibilities. The great scholar ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed, our shaykh, narrated that he heard shaykh 'Izz ad-Deen ibn 'Abdus-Salaam say about ibn al-'Arabi: "He is an evil shaykh, a liar. He says that the world is eternal and does not prohibit any sexual relation."

>I say: "If Muhyi ad-Deen repented from those statements before death, then he succeeded, and that is not difficult for Allah."

>He died in Rabee' al-Aakhir in the year 638.

>I cited material from him in at-Taareekh al-Kabeer. He had elegant poetry, vast knowledge, and a sharp mind. There is no doubt that many of his expressions allow interpretation, except the book al-Fusoos.

>I read in the handwriting of ibn Rafi' that he saw in the handwriting of Fath ad-Deen al-Ya'mari that he heard ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed say: I heard shaykh 'Izz ad-Deen, and ibn al-'Arabi at-Taa'i was mentioned, so he said: "He is an evil, vile, lying shaykh."

(Source)

If that's the case with ibn Taymiyyah later realizing the reality of ibn 'Arabi, how is that supposed to be any different for other scholars, where they likely missed this point? But no, the Haddaadiyyah consider their understanding as infallible, their knowledge as far encompassing, and themselves far more knowledgeable than shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, as they did with the vile man, al-Khulayfi, considering him the most knowledgeable man in the entire world. But it is astonishing how blind they are, as this vile man failed in the most simple grammar rule. (Source) They do not have far-sight.

Speaking of al-Khulayfi, since he has this vileness, ugliness, foul language, and despicable nature, it is only understandable that Bashem would inherit such behavior, likely considering all this as something pleasing to Allah. Consider his own words:

>The Azhari homoerotica enjoyer is trying to defend Suyuti still, he has displayed lack of interest in صفات رب العالمين the attributes of Allaah the Lord of the worlds so to help him I used things that are more apparently of kufr

>- Insulting the Quraan >- Permitting homosexuality >- Permitting cucking >- Grave worship

>Yet to no avail, he tries to defend As-Suyuti who, before his death, wrote a will that said

>"Build a shrine on my grave and ask me for anything you need"

>May Allaah make him more ugly, more miserable, and more tormented in the depths of Jahannam with Firaun, Haman, Qaroon and Ubayy ibn Khalaf

>What is even worse is that he is trying to suck up to scholars who are blatantly mistaken in praising Suyuti

These are the ones he is referring to:

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

In short, these Ahlus-Sunnah scholars whom I refer back to for their knowledge and justice concerning imam as-Suyooti are, in Bashem's eyes, "the Azhari homoerotica enjoyers trying to defend Suyuti still" and those "who are trying to suck up to him". According to him, they have also displayed a lack of interest in the Beautiful Names of Allah.

By the way, Bashem is a dajjaalic liar. This is why he fails in contextualizing the alleged quotations by actually referring back to their sources, as otherwise, he will expose himself as a deliberate liar in his false translations. He just happens to misuse the ignorance of his subscribers in the Arabic language, as though he is truthful.

There is no wording for "Build a shrine on my grave..." (relevant) and the rest is nonsense, such as translating the name "Muhyi ad-Deen" as "REVIVALIST OF ISLAM", despite the fact that names are not supposed to be translated. He just happens to be excited, as though he has great points, but Allah exposes them when they attempt to dig up the zallaat of the scholars, with no precedence whatsoever from Ahlus-Sunnah scholars in how these are approached.

It is only understandable that when his "shaykh" was challenged on whether he has any scholarly precedence for his disparagement against imam an-Nawawi, he said, "I am Muhammad ibn Shams, I say." They have put their identity and person high above scholars, getting ahead of themselves despite having no precedence, similar to what became of Dimashqiyyah.

These people do not have any teachings on the guidelines of how the zallaat are to be approached, to such an extent that they are likely to be silent about their contradictory beliefs on how the earth is to be viewed, either by believing the fabricated Israa'eeliyyaat or from a poem like that of al-Qahtaani, saying that the earth is not spherical but flat! (Source)