A Fitting Response to Those Speaking Negatively in Their Chatrooms About Brothers From Masjid Muqbil | Abu Fajr Abdul Fattah ḥafidhahullāh

Sheikh Abu Atiyyah is one of the diligent students of knowledge, through whom Allah has benefitted others — we consider him to be such, and Allah is his judge. May Allah grant him success and guidance. Whoever has been guided towards good and to benefiting from his brothers without making comparisons or belittling others, that is indeed commendable.

But, do not envy a body that lacks such feelings. If someone considers themselves superior, let them go to the scholar they regard as such and study under them, rather than becoming an obstacle for students of knowledge and causing their downfall. Allah said: {And taste the evil [of what you did] by turning [people] away from the path of Allah}.

We advise our brothers to be humble, gentle-hearted, and not to belittle acts of goodness. Let them help their brothers, not assist the devils against them.

As it was well said:

'Refrain from blaming them — you are no father to their father.
If you must criticise, then fill the gap they have filled.’

Shaykh Abdullah Lamh Al Khowlānī

As for his participation in a conference with Faisal Al-Jaasim, one of our distinguished students, Isa Al-Bashawiri, may Allāh grant him success, provided the following clarification:

"The Sheikh's position is one of disagreement with Faisal regarding the issues that have he has been criticised for over the past few years. One of the Sheikh's closest students, who is also one of my teachers, informed me privately that the Sheikh's attendance at the conference with Faisal was due to a request from some senior officials in the Kuwaiti Ministry of Religious Endowments. Although the Sheikh was reluctant to attend, he accepted out of respect for those who made the request. It is worth noting that the conference was not publicly announced on the Sheikh's official platforms. At that time, Faisal’s position was still unclear to many scholars, and some continued to hold a favorable opinion of him. And Allāh knows best.

In conclusion, I say that what matters to us is the truth, which we hold dearer than the lecture of any particular scholar, and I ask Allāh for success. However, based on what we have learned, associating Sheikh At-Tahiri with the group of outcasts or those from whom knowledge should not be taken is, in my view, incorrect. I have not received any such statement from my esteemed teachers, may Allāh grant them all success. And Allāh knows best and is Most Wise.

Abu Atiyyah Āl-Hussayn
14/4/1446 [17/10/24]

"After all of this, Sheikh Ubaid Al-Jabiri (may Allāh forgive him) warned against studying under Dr. Abu Salah (Muhammad At-Tahiri)! This, by Allāh, is one of the consequences of tale-carrying which Allah prohibited, and there is no doubt that this is a sinful act, stirred by the devil, as warned by the Messenger ﷺ. But, alas, some may think they are doing good, as Allāh says: 'So it barred them from the [correct] path, and they are not rightly guided' (An-Naml 24)." (End of the intended quote).
http://www.saltaweel.com/articles/344

This article was dated Sha’ban 14, 1435 AH, which means over a decade has passed since its publication, indicating that their separation and Sheikh Ubaid’s warning against him occurred even earlier. Where is this companionship, then, when it has been severed for over ten years and ended with a warning? It is not far-fetched to think that someone was take-carrying about Sheikh Yahya to Sheikh Ubaid, leading to the latter's criticisms.

Lastly, my attention was drawn to the answer of our Sheikh (may Allāh support him), who explained that one reason for not declaring a person an innovator is that their innovation may not be evident to those who refrain from declaring them as such, even if it has been clarified to them due to a lack of insight. He said:

"Not declaring an innovator as such may be due to a lack of insight in recognising it, so someone who has insight has been enlightened by Allāh, while the other did not declare the person an innovator because they did not recognise it, or lacked insight, even if it was explained to them. Or, there may be doubts or bad company that prevent them from declaring the innovator as such. Not everyone who refrains from declaring an innovator is themselves an innovator. However, there is a distinction to be made regarding someone who assists in sin and transgression, does not declare the innovator as such due to approval of the innovation, or because they follow the same path and agree with it, even after the matter has been clearly explained to them. In such a case, it can indeed be said that they have not declared the innovator as such. As the saying goes, "A person is upon the religion of their close companion, so let each of you look to whom you befriend." Ahmad said: "They are from among them." These evidences are applied accordingly, based on the situation at hand." (End of quote).
https://t.me/almanhajussalafi/870

This is a sound foundation, upheld by scholars, including Sheikh Al-Fawzan, who clarified when it is valid to consider someone who refrains from declaring an innovator to be like the innovator himself. He said: "Because they permitted the innovation and agreed with it." (The implication is clear: those who do not meet this criterion are treated differently).
https://dralfawzann.com/file/8166

The implied understanding is clear: for those who do not fit this description, the ruling differs. I recall in this context that when Sheikh As-Suhaimi, may Allāh grant him success, visited Britain in 1439 AH for the purpose of Da'wah, Sheikh Yahya, may Allāh support him, was asked about hosting him at the Muqbil Muqbil and whether it was beneficial to learn from him. The Sheikh replied that he is to be benefitted from him in matters of creed, despite it being well-known that Sheikh As-Suhaimi was a peer and friend of Sheikh Ubayd, not to mention the other observations that had been made about him. Therefore, we have brought forth nothing new, and we ask Allāh for success and guidance.

One of our students informed me that when he visited Kuwait and had the opportunity to meet Sheikh Muhammad At-Tahiri, and he told him that he was studying with some of the students of Dammaj. He conveyed his greetings and sent us his regards. This, in addition to previous considerations, led us to have a favourable opinion of Sheikh At-Tahiri—may Allāh aid him—for had he followed the path of his teacher, he would not have agreed to give the lecture. Reflect on this!

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

I have received some inquiries regarding a telelink lecture arranged by some of our brothers with Sheikh Muhammad At-Tahiri (may Allāh grant him to success to what pleases Him). Since certain concerns have been raised about him, and these inquiries come from noble and beloved brothers, whose requests are dear to me, I felt compelled to respond. However, answering each individual inquiry separately would take considerable time, which is difficult to manage given the many responsibilities in da’wah and other matters.

Thus, I thought it best to write this statement to save time and simplify the matter, with the help of Allāh, and began by objectively reviewing the concerns that were raised, hoping to gain clarity and stand upon the truth. Our goal, after all, is to adhere to the pure Salafi methodology as much as possible, avoiding what taints it, regardless of the magnitude or insignificance of the errors involved, and success is only from Allāh. As Ibn Taymiyyah, quoting Al-Hasan Al-Basri (may Allāh have mercy on both), wisely said: “The believer is one who stops and verifies.” (Majmū’ Al-Fatāwa 10/382).

It became clear to me that the concerns raised can be summarised into three main points:

1. His quoting two lines of poetry from Al-Halabi.
2. His discipleship and companionship with his teacher, Ubaid Al-Jabiri, and his lecture after the latter’s death, where he explained what he learned from him (may Allāh have mercy on both).
3. His participation in a conference attended by Faisal Al-Jasim.

First and foremost, I should note that the majority of the responses from scholars regarding Sheikh At-Tahiri do not contain a clear warning against him, despite the repeated and detailed questioning. This, in our opinion, stems from their caution and fear of speaking without full knowledge, as criticicing individuals requires clear evidence and understanding. Imam Ibn Daqeeq Al-Eid (may Allāh have mercy on him) said in 'Al-Iqtirah fi Bayan Al-Istilah' (1/61): “The honour of Muslims is a pit from the pits of Hellfire, and two groups of people are on the edge of it: the scholars of ḥadīth and the judges.” End of quote.

Regarding the two lines of poetry, one of our brothers contacted a close student of Sheikh At-Tahiri, Abdul-Aziz Al-Haqqan (may Allāh grant him success), who explained that the incident took place more than eight years ago, at a time when Al-Halabi's condition was not clear to him. Al-Haqqan also mentioned that Sheikh At-Tahiri no longer considers Al-Halabi a source of knowledge, and if anyone seeks further clarification, they should contact Sheikh At-Tahiri directly.

As for his praise of his teacher, Ubaid Al-Jabiri (may Allāh have mercy on him), this is not surprising, as it mirrors the stance of many other scholars from the Kingdom and elsewhere, who were unaware of his mistakes. It seems to me that Sheikh At-Tahiri is no different from them in this regard. Despite his long companionship with Sheikh Ubaid, and the ongoing conflict between Sheikh Ubaid and Sheikh Yahya (may Allāh support him) for years, I did not find any indication that Sheikh At-Tahiri supported or endorsed his teacher’s warnings, nor did he speak out against Dar Al-Hadith (in Dammaj) or its students who responded to Sheikh Ubaid. This leads me to believe that there is a clear distinction between them in this regard. I am open to being corrected by anyone who has further knowledge on this matter.

Some may ask on what basis I distinguish between their paths, given Sheikh At-Tahiri's long companionship with his teacher. I would respond that, after a close relationship and joint authorship between Sheikh At-Tahiri and his teacher, they parted ways for reasons known only to Allāh. Sheikh Ubaid even warned against him, as reported by Salim Al-Taweel in one of his articles, where he said:

يُوضع بحسبه في من لم يصلح تبديعه على إطلاقه.انتهى

https://t.me/almanhajussalafi/870

وهذا تأصيل جيد ، وعليه أهل العلم، فقال الشيخ الفوزان مبينا متى يصح إلحاق من توقف عن تبديع المبتدع به فقال "لأنه أجاز البدعة ووافقه عليها"
https://dralfawzann.com/file/8166/

ومفهومه واضح، أن من لم يكن كذلك، فحكمه يختلف.و أتذكر في هذا المقام عندما نزل الشيخ السحيمي وفقه الله بريطانيا دعوة إلى الله عام 1439هـ، وسئل الشيخ يحيى أيده الله حول استقباله في مسجد مقبل والاستفادة منه. أجاب الشيخ بأن يستفاد منه في العقيدة، وهذا مع أنه كان معروفا أن الشيخ السحيمي قرين وصديق للشيخ عبيد وناهيك عن الملاحظات الأخرى التي كانت عليه. فما جئنا بجديد والله نسأل التوفيق والتسديد.

وأحبرني أحد طلبتنا أنه عند أن نزل الكويت واتُفق له زيارة الشيخ محمد الطاهري فأعلمه أنه يطلب العلم عند بعض طلبة من دماج، أبلغنا تحياته وأقرأنا سلامه، وهذا علاوة على ما سبق جعلنا نحسن بالشيخ الطاهري -أيده الله- الظن إذ لو سار مسار شيخه لما وافق على المحاضرة، فتأمل!

أما مشاركته في مؤتمر مع فيصل الجاسم، فقد أجاب عنها أحد طلبتنا النجباء عيسى البشاوري فتح الله عليه فقال بارك الله فيه:

إن موقف الشيخ هو عدم الموافقة للجاسم في مواقفه المنتقَدة عليه خلال السنوات الماضية.أحد أقرب طلاب الشيخ، وهو أيضاً أحد مشايخي، أخبرني على الخاص أن حضور الشيخ في المؤتمر مع فيصل كان بناءً على طلب من بعض كبار المسؤولين في وزارة الأوقاف الكويتية. رغم أن الشيخ لم يكن يرغب في الحضور، إلا أنه وافق احتراماً لمن قدموا الطلب. ومن الجدير بالذكر أن الإعلان عن المؤتمر لم يتم مشاركته بشكل علني على منصات الشيخ الرسمية. في ذلك الوقت، لم تكن حال فيصل واضحة لكثير من المشايخ، وبعضهم كان لا يزال يحمله على الظن الحسن.والله أعلم.

وبعد هذا فأقول إن الذي يهمنا هو الحق وهو أحب إلينا من محاضرة شيخ فلان أو علان والله أسأل التوفيق. لكن على ما وصلنا إليه فإلحاق الشيخ الطاهري بزمرة المنبوذين أو فئة المهجورين الذين لا يؤخذ عنهم العلم بما ذُكر فلا أراه صوابا ولا وصلني عن مشايخي الفضلاء وفقهم الله جميعا القولُ به. هذا والله أعلم وأحكم

أبُو عَطيَّة آل حُسينٍ
14/4/1446

Khutbah Jumu'ah

Āshūrā - Virtues of Fasting it & Warning from Innovations pertaining to it

'Īsā ibn Umar Al-Peshāwari

_______
Do your best to fast tomorrow (9th of Muharram) and the day day after (10th of Muharram)

If you mean Shaykh Ubaid رحمه الله, then why were you okay with having a tele-link with Shaykh Yahyā in your Masjid (Cranford) sometime later after Shaykh Ubaid and Shaykh Yahyā exchanged letters in 2008, and also after Shaykh Salīm sent his letter to Shaykh Yahyā in March 2009? Bearing in mind, SPubs were unhappy about it, but you weren't bothered about that.

The letters between Shaykh Ubaid and Shaykh Yahyā are available for everyone to read and one can see that Shaykh Yahyā was defending himself.

As for Shaykh Rabī', then Shaykh Yahyā defended himself from the accusation of Haddādīyah and then a well-known phone call took place between the two in 2011 showing that there was brotherhood.

So what happened after that that caused Shaykh Rabī's stance to change? What did Shaykh Yahyā do differently?

Why do you speak so vaguely? Perhaps because you have no proof. Mention to us these 'other deviations'?

He states:

"Which is why the Hajaawirah recently invited him to the UK for a 'tour' even though they are all upon opposing manaahij! While the Salafis had abandoned Hilaali approx 25 years prior and Haajoori approx 10 years prior! "

It appears that the knowledge-based lectures irritated Taqweem so much that he refers to them as a 'tour". This is as Ibn Al-Wardi رحمه الله mentioned in his laamiyyah:

في ازدياد العلم إرغام العدا * وجمال العلم إصلاح العمل

Increasing knowledge subdues enemies, and the beauty of knowledge is in the improvement of actions.

If Shaykh Salīm refuted Halabī and his likes, then what opposing manāhij are they upon?!

And if he was abandoned 25 years ago and then recanted, should he still be abandoned? Is this not the methodology of the Haddādīyyah; refusing to accept the repentance of a person who declares his innocence?!

As for Hajūri abandoning him 10 years prior (which we assume, 10 years prior to today), then Shaykh Salīm visited Yemen almost 15 years ago.

He states:

"Oh oh what a pitiful state bid'ah reduces you to"

Words that can be said by anyone. Which bid'ah, and what exactly are you talking about? Be clear in your speech and leave off this ambiguity that you mislead the people with.

You're not known for knowledge, nor are you busy in Da'wah. You're not even someone that others should ask for advice if you were truthful, as you've been inactive for many years from da'wah. This religion is knowledge and action.

Allah the Most High states:
﴿هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ﴾
"He is the One Who has sent His Messenger with ˹true˺ guidance and the religion of truth, making it prevail over all others, even to the dismay of the polytheists."
[Tawbah : 33]

Ibn Kathīr comments on the ayāh, saying:

Guidance consists of the truthful information, correct faith, and beneficial knowledge he ﷺ brought, while the religion of truth encompasses the righteous deeds that are correct and beneficial in both this world and the hereafter.

Busy yourself with what will save you infront of Allah, the Most High.

Written by:
Abu Ibrāhīm Fahad Al-Kīnī