Posts tagged Ali Hasan al-Halabi
When ‘Abdullah bin Salam, may Allah be pleased with him, accepted Islam, he wanted to reveal to the Prophet, peace be upon him, one of the qualities of the Jews. He said, “O Messenger of Allah, the Jews are a people given to falsehood. So hide me and ask them about my status amongst them before they learn that I am a Muslim.”
A group of them came to the Prophet and he asked them, “What is the status of Abdllah bin Salam amongst you?”
They said, “He is the best of us and the son of the best of us. He is our master and the son of our master. He is our most learned and the son of our most learned.”
Allah’s Messenger, peace be upon him, asked them, “What if Abdullah bin Salam were to accept Islam?”
They said, “May Allah save him from that.”
Abdullah then came out and said, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger.”
They began to say, “The worst of us and the son of the worst of us…” and similar remarks.
This is a quality of the Jews: exaggerating in praising the one who agrees with them and then exaggerating in condemning him once he differs with them. (more…)
This courtesy of Salafitalk:
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee on the Principle: Let us not Make our Disagreement about Someone Else a Cause for Disagreement Between Us
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee on the Principle: Let us not Make our Disagreement about Someone Else a Cause for Disagreement Between Us – The Scholar of al-Madeenah is asked about one of the corrupt principles of ‘Alee al-Halabee, wherein he says, “It is not permissible for us to make our disagreement with someone else besides us into a disagreement between us.” The Shaykh clarifies the falsehood of this principle and warns against those who have infiltrated into the ranks of Ahlus-Sunnah today.
‘Alee al-Halabee said,
“And we must not have enmity towards all of the people for the sake of [‘Abdur-Rahmaan] ‘Abdul-Khaaliq. We clarify and we say a statement that we have said more than once: It is not permissible for us to make our disagreement with someone else besides us into a disagreement between us.”
Refer to Notification to the Intelligent Part 4 (p. 4, 8-9).
On the first night of Ramadaan, 1429H, Shaykh Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee was asked about the principle, “We must not make our disagreement about someone else a cause for disagreement amongst ourselves.” So the noble Shaykh answered,
“It is a corrupt principle, and with it they want to not perform tabdee’ (declaring one an innovator) and jarh (criticism, disparagement) of those who deserve the jarh and the tabdee’, such as al-Maghraawee, Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee and Muhammad Hassaan.”
More to follow on this topic inshaa` Allaah…
In other words, anyone who does not make tabdee of those who we make tabdee’ of is a mubtadi’. Anyone who associates with someone we make tabdee’ of is a mubtadi, or a hizbi, or his manhaj is in question.
It is significant to note that the ongoing feud between Halabi-Madkhali (or Spubs and Brixton Mosque) is between different strands of Madkhalism, and many of the personalities around which this feud is focused (as Madkhalism is amongst all things obsessed with personalities) are individuals such as al-Maghrawi who very much float in the sphere of Madkhali ideology.
**Note: to see an example of Madkhali extremism, click the Salafitalk link above to this document by this character, al-Za’taree: http://www.sunnahpublishing.net/modules/Manhaj/tanbeehulfateen4.pdf
Another nail in the coffin of blood-sucking Madkhalis.
This time, Shaykh Abd al-Aziz Aal al-Shaykh is asked about the Jarh Rabi’ al-Madkhali makes on his opponents. The Shaykh replies by saying that much of this sort of Jarh is based on nothing but whims, desires and personal animosity.
Arabic (followed by translation):
Not very long ago, a tantrum throwing Madkhali from Madina, known as Ubayd al-Jabiri, received a phone call from a follower of his best-friend-turned-worst-enemy, Falih al-Harbi who questioned him about his stance on Ali Hasan al-Halabi in light of the fatwa by al-Lajna al-Da’ima.
Ubayd al-Jabiri advised him to disregard the fatwa against al-Halabi, causing the questioner to accuse him of Irja. After being accused of Irja by the rude caller – who called him and recorded the conversation precisely to entrap him – al-Jabiri fell for it retaliated by saying:
الجزائريون والليبيون كُلَّهُم حمير إلَا من رحم اللَّه
Algerians and Libyans are all donkeys, except those to whom Allah shows mercy!
Khalid al-‘Anbari is another one of the leaders of the contemporary Murji sect. He was declared a Murji, and his books were further banned by the leading scholars of our time, including Shaykh ‘Abd al-Aziz Aal al-Shaykh, Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd and Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghudayan.
However, the innovators in the West continue to cling on to these misguiding innovators, despite of clear cut warnings from the senior scholars of Saudi Arabia. The Murji centres in the UK who continue to invite Ali Hasan al-Halabi and Khalid al-Anbari include Brixton Mosque, Masjid al-Ghuraba in Luton and SalafiManhaj website.
Muslims are warned against Khalid al-Anbari and all centres that support him and his heresy. Below is the fatwa from The Permanent Body for Research and Legal Opinion against the heretic, Khalid al-‘Anbari, and by extension, all their supporters.
After only a year of publishing their defence of Ali Hasan al-Halabi against the senior scholars of Saudi Arabia, SalafiPublications decided to right him off as well! (We wonder what must be going through Amjad Rafiq’s head at the point in time: ‘Man! I wasted all that time translating al-Halabi’s codswallop, which I could have better spent writing his refutation, or eating curry!’)
Allah decided to expose what Amjad Rafiq was hiding, just as He exposed what Rabi’ al-Madkhali was hiding.
Below is what was once a ‘private’ email from the innovator Amjad Rafiq (Abu Iyaad), the main author and translator behind SalafiPublications, showing how they plot and plan against individuals, while showing their love and respect for them in public. (more…)
Click below to listen to the whole conversation:
لا لا ، هذا … عبدالحميد هذا اتركوه لأن هذا هو الذي يقود مذهب المرجئة في المملكة
“No! No! This man… ‘Abd al-Hamid… Leave him, because he is the man who is leading the Madhab of the Murji’a in the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia)”
In the name of Allah – the Most Merciful – the Dispenser of Mercy
Fatwa Number: 21517 and Dated: 14/6/1421 AH
Praise be to Allah alone, and the Salaah and the Salaam be upon the one after whom there is no prophet… And as for what follows:
For verily, The Permanent body for research and legal opinion was informed about what was mentioned to the eminent General Mufti from some of the sincere ones about the requests for a legal formal opinion specifically for the secretariat general of the Council of Senior Scholars with number: 2928 and dated: 13/5/1421 AH. And number: 2929 and dated: 13/5/1421 AH, regarding the two books: “at-Tahdheer Min Fitnatit-Takfeer” [Warning from the tribulations of Takfeer] and “Saihatun-Nadheer” [An Outcry of the Warner] by their compiler – ‘Alee Hasan al-Halabi, and that they [the two books] are calling to the Madhhab of Irjaa [by claiming] that al-‘Amal [action] is not the condition for the correctness of Imaan, and he attributes this to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, and basis these two books upon distorted reports from Sheikh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah, al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer and others than them two – May Allah have mercy upon all, as well as the desire of those sincere ones for an explanation to what exists in these two books so that the readers may acknowledge the truth from falsehood… and so on…
And after the study carried out by The Body of the two aforementioned books and the examination of them, it has become clear to The Body that the book “at-Tahdheer Min Fitnatit-Takfeer” compiled by ‘Alee Hasan al-Halabi, in what he appended to the statements of the Scholars in his forward as well as his footnotes, comprises of the following:
1 – Its author based it [the book] upon the false, innovated Madhhab of the Murji`ah, those who encircle al-Kufr, with the Kufr of Juhood [rejection], Takdheeb [denial] and al-Istihlaal al-Qalbee [making permissible that which is forbidden – in the heart, only] as it [appeared] on p.6 f.2 and p.22 and this is contrary to what Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah are upon, that al-Kufr occurs by al-I’itiqaad [belief], by al-Qawl [statements], by al-Fi’l [actions] and by ash-Shak [doubts].
2 – His distortion while conveying from Ibn Katheer – May Allah have Mercy upon him – from “al-Bidaayah an-Nihaayah” [The beginning and the end] 13/118, when he mentioned in the footnote on p.15, conveying from Ibn Katheer: “That Jankeez Khaan claimed regarding al-Yaasiq that it is from Allah, and this is the reason for their Kufr”, but when referring back to that passage [in the book we come to know that], what he attributed to Ibn Katheer – may Allah have Mercy upon him – was not found.
3 – Attributing an unfounded statement to Sheikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah – may Allah have mercy upon him – on p.17-18 when the aforementioned compiler of the book, attributes to him, that the ruling on the Mubaddal [the one who replaces the Sharee’ah of Allah with other laws] according to Sheikh al-Islaam is not Kufr [Akbar], unless if [the replacement of the Sharee’ah] occurs with Ma’rifah [acknowledgement], I’tiqaad [belief] and Istihlaal [making permissible that which is forbidden], and this is merely a baseless statement attributed to Sheikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah – May Allah have Mercy upon him – as he was the propagator of the Madhhab of the Salaf of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, and their Madhhab is what has preceded, whereas this [i.e. Alee Hasan’s Madhhab], indeed it is the Madhhab of the Murji`ah.
4 – His alteration of the intent of the eminent al-‘Allaamah ash-Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibraahim – May Allah have Mercy on him – in his article – Tahkeem al-Qawaaneen al-Wadha’eeyah [Ruling by man-made laws], when the compiler of the aforementioned book claims that the Sheikh places a condition of Istihlaal al-Qalbee [making permissible that which is forbidden – in the heart], whereas the statement of the Sheikh is as clear as the sun in his aforementioned article to the mainstream of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.
5 – His comments upon the statements of those whom he mentioned from the people of knowledge, by implying a meaning from their statements which do not carry that meaning, as it appeared on p.108 f.1, p.109 f.21 and p.110 f.2.
6 – As there exists in the book showing insignificance to ruling with other than the laws of Allah, and especially on p.5 f.1 with a claim that having concern for the realisation of Tawheed in this issue has similarities with the Shee’ah – ar-Raafidhah – and this is a grave error.
7 – And by examining the second piece of work – Saihatun-Nadheer, it is found that it [the book] is as if a continuation of the aforementioned book [Fitnatut-Takfeer] – and its condition is as has been mentioned. For this reason, verily, The Permanent Body views that these two books, it is not permissible to publish them, nor propagating them, nor circulating them, due to what they contain from falsehood and distortion. And we advise their author to fear Allah regarding himself, and regarding the Muslims and especially their youth, and that he strives to gain Shara’ee knowledge first-hand from the Scholars, those trustworthy in regards to knowledge and correctness of their belief. And that knowledge is a trust, and it is not permissible to propagate it, unless it is in accordance to the Book and the Sunnah. And to uproot the likes of these opinions and the despicable method of distorting the statements of the people of knowledge. And it is known that to return to the truth is a virtue and a nobility for a Muslim.
And Allah is the granter of success, and the Salaah and Salaam of Allah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his followers and his companions.
The Permanent body for research and legal opinion
Head Abdul ‘Azeez bin ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad Aal ash-Sheikh
Member ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abdur-Rahmaan al-Gudeyaan
Member Bakr bin ‘Abdullah Abu Zaid
Member Saalih bin Fawzaan al-Fawzaan
1) ‘Ali Hasan based his works on the heretical Murji doctrine
2) ‘Ali Hasan distorts statements of scholars and attributes to them what they never said
3) ‘Ali Hasan belittles the Kufr of ruling with man-made laws
4) It is Haram to publish or promote ‘Ali Hasan’s view on Iman and Kufr, for it is essentially a Murji view
5) ‘Ali Hasan al-Halabi is admonished and advised to fear Allah and to learn Islam from the scholars first-hand, implying that he neither fears Allah nor has he studied from scholars first-hand.
6) Aforementioned views are shared by Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Aal al-Shaykh, Shaykh ‘Abdullah b. al-Ghudayan, Shaykh Bakr b. ‘Abdullah Abu Zayd and Shaykh Salih b. Fawzan al-Fawzan