!"#$%& '(#$%& )& !*+ A Series of Refutations upon The False Claims of Spubs Abu Khadeejah Stated: “He loves to be excessively praised and encourages it.” This is in fact an indirect revilement upon The Imam, Ash-Shaykh Muqbil, as by this Abu Khadeejah is alleging that ash-Shaykh Muqbil selected an individual who loves to be praised to succeed him in his centre. Ash-Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooreee has already refuted this doubt prior to this false claim of Abu Khadeejah. Ash-Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree, may Allah preserve him said: "By Allah oh my brother I do not enjoy being praised neither from before nor afterwards and Allah is a witness and observes the hearts, some poets would come with some poetry which I would browse over and erase (i.e. some words) from it which deserves to be removed while some poets, I am shy to say to him come and let me check your poetry whereas perhaps he could be an old poet while a poet has with him zeal to defend (the truth) ..., therefore a slip and a error can a occur , Allah has said :
6 8 9/ - ; : =< > . , " >< * 4 ? / @- 3 A-- 0 / 1-- 3245 7 No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only) So it is upon us to advise..." Ref: http://aloloom.net/vb/showthread. http://aloloom.net/vb/showthread.php?t=17476 php?t=17476 Abu Khadeejah Stated: “In his presence his muqallids (blind-followers) liken him to the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) and Abu Bakr (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) - they declared him to be the Imaam of Mankind and Jinn.” As for what they wrote regarding the exaggerations of some of the poets for ash-Shaykh Yahya such as the statement "If They Were to Melt Yahya al-Hajuri His Flesh Would Dissolve into the Book and the Sunnah!" and "Imaam of the Men and Jinn" and other than that, then that has been clarified here and on other sources prior to this statement of the writer: An Excerpt from the aforementioned link: Ash-Shaykh AbdulHameed al-Hajooree said: “…As for us we retract from them two and they’ve been erased from the edition with the knowledge that those who uttered it have retracted as well. Also that Abu Zaid Al-Hajoori has retracted at that time and posted his retraction on the website Aloloom Assalafiya along with that he invited them to repent like him, and he said in his writing to his brothers in Indonesia: << I didn’t intend by it except the leader of both men and Jinn in our time and in our land(Yemen) and with it I make Taubah Taubah (repent) to Allah>>
"as for Abu Muslim Al-Hajoori he said: I only intended by that line the strong adherence of Shaykh Yahya, may Allah preserve him, to the Book and Sunnah and his severance upon who oppose it ,whereas that is from the angle of the statement of the Prophet CC C C C C CC C C C C C C CC C CC C C C C C C CC CC C C C C C C “Ammaar's mashaash (i.e. blood, flesh, all parst of his body) was filled (i.e. mixed) with eeman ” <5888 Saheeh Al-Jaami Al-Albani> and viewing that these lines of poetry have caused a wrong meaning, and some who are polluted by the fitnah have already made use of it to slander Dammaj and Shaykh Yahya may Allah preserve him. Thus I retract from it and I ask Allah to forgive me and repent to him and praise is to Allah, The Lord of all mankind. "
! 0 FA FA
B " 0 1 )& D 0 E
Written by Abu Muslim Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Al-Husain Al-Hajoori al-za’akari, in Dar Ahadith Dammaj 2 Rabee II 1430/ 28 March 2009>> Below is the retraction of the poet from the statement "The Imaam of Mankind and Jinn" (which is in poetry form):
6 N*% GH#$IJK L,M+ N< *% ***G9OP%& '(#$%& OQ1 ,R $XX"QP@ '1 YZ&$JW ,9[A (GH("%& S0TU%& V,W5)*** $XX"QP@ GH0P%& >R\]J%& 'W NQ@ N< Q@***,.H01&A G0UW YZ&$@A 4^8%& _`+ ,R ,(0P%,+ ***,(0P%& a$bA >"cPJ%&A ^8%& "O Abdurrahmaan al-A'dani***I am not extreme, whereas you may disparage me As well I have retracted from the expression*** (The Imaam of Mankind and Jinn in Yemen) Yemen) Likewise retract too and announce it***….(to the end e nd of the poetry)" This retraction was just posted on the website Aloloom in the year 2008 let alone that the brother retracted from his exaggeration of praise for ash-Shaykh Yahya before the year 2008. http://www.aloloom.net/vb/showthread.php?t=94 The Noble Brother Abu Mus’ab Husayn al-Hajooree said: "This nickname (i.e. Imam athThaqalayn) was found in the scholars of the past whereas they weren’t rebuked as Shaykh Yahya has been rebuked by the new hizbi party, the people of annoyance and stubbornness. Al-Allamaah as-San’aanee, may Allah have mercy upon him, said in the book entitled Irshaad an-Naqaad (20): "...Then a fatwa was given by another faqeeh by the nickname the Muftee athThaqalayn, whereas he permitted a hanafi getting married to a shafi’ and he based the reason being that the rulings of (marriage) pertaining to the people of the book is to be applied to her..." While al-Allaamah as-San’aanee, may Allah have mercy upon him, did not rebuked this nickname (as they rebuked it). Ref: http://aloloom.net/vb/showthread. http://aloloom.net/vb/showthread.php?t=2721 php?t=2721 Side Note: The poet who brought mentioning of the nickname Imam ath-Thaqalayn "Imaam of the Men and Jinn", only intended by such a nickname that which is confined to this era and to Yemen.
While he openly made repentance from that statement prior to all these recent attacks against Shaykh Yahya which was clarified on more than one website. Likewise Ash-Shaykh AbdulHameed , may Allah preserve him, clarified, the error of adding such erroneous exaggerations of those poets to the appedix of one of his books - being that he thought the poetry was already examined -, the aforementioned correction and retraction is found on his website which was posted in the year 2009:http://alzoukory.com/play.php? catsmktba=111 Also the aforementioned appedix of the poetry was added to the book after Shaykh Yahya already gave a preface to the book, whereas ash-Shaykh Yahya did not approve that appedix ,so he not to be held responsible for it. Add to the old aforementioned retraction a new poetic retraction by Abu Zaid Al-Hajooree regarding the statement “Imam Ath-Thaqalain, whereas he mentioned therein that Shaykh Yahya was the one who advised him about that statement. This was taken from the Arabic section of Aloloom.
&A$=dR 3 ,H@,1e Vd+$"M+A *** &A$cQR 3 ,H+`"1 $"M% 'W ,R &A$?HJ*@ ,W ;= '1 >f,@ ,9[ *** >f,@ ,9[ >f,@ ,9[ >f,@ ,9[ &A$Pg@ !% h5 BH1 YZ&$J%& iQF *** jd%& N"Q%& k%l '1 >f,@ ,9[ &AmdP@ G% !?J"J% A[ ,.J0n ,W *** GHJ"% ,R om,Q1 G01 Nn$W &A$J*@ !% jd%& $JF BH?% *** ,.H"# G% $p[ D"]R q"g%&A &A$*8JF,W`0P%& '1 YZ&$J%& '1A *** ee$@ hAe NQJK a,JJ*R3&A &A$=dR 3 ,H+`9l $"M% 'W ,R *** ,.@,"r GK L&s 3 B0P%A &A$gQ@ t`HT%,+ G% !?95 V[ *** u+`@ G% ;v V`n ,R >f,@ ,9[ &Am$Q@ V,TJ9w% B+ !J9[ *** jd%& N"Q%& k%l 'W >f,@ ,9[ &Amd]@ x,Hv B+ yRO]%& m&e *** 'WA B+ h`(I.@ qR,gz& D01A &A$8MJ*R 'z {&m,8| N*%A[ *** GJ%s $8|,K am,R >f,@ ,9[ $Q=[ x`81 L&s 3 ,H@3s *** N(},P@ ,(.W !.0%& k9&$8| B(F& ;UW ,]E,9 D"]R q"g%&A
For the audio click the link. - http://alzoukory.com/play.php?catsmktba=1413 Abu Khadeejah Stated: “They have ghuloo (excessive veneration) for him and he encourages it.” Ash-Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree has already explained this false accusation: “...Some of the (exaggerated) words could be read while I am preoccupied with papers, whereas I can (also) be busy with those seeking permission to be dismissed (from the lesson), by Allah some of them
(i.e. words) we weren’t paying attention to...while we bring notice to (it) once I become aware of it or informed about it whereas I bring notice to it then” Ref: http://aloloom.net/vb/showthread.php?t=17476 Another Side Note: It is common between poets that they exaggerate in their poetry, whereas there are many examples of poets who have exaggerated for several amount of scholars although such exaggerations are not correct but why are Spubs not rebuking them as they have rebuked the poets who have exaggerated for Shaykh Yahya??? Abu Khadeejah stated: “...liken him to the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) and Abu Bakr (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu)..." The below lines of poetry was read in the presence of Ash-Shaykh Muqbil, in the city of Saah of Hadramout,the poetry is entitled: Glad Tidings Oh Saah.
$Q~%& ,nOE &`(JK $1 yRO]%& m&e --- •m&O+ `vA q"g%& hA$cQ@ `% $(1 &dv A[ €,Q1 '+& &dv --- &`(J0T% yRO]%& m&e &`(@ms `% $?8%& N.+,g@ On ;QH# '+& &l A[---k%,WA GPK,g%& V,W& &l A[... ...
"If you were to see Shaykh (Muqbil) while he is in his Centre Daarul Hadeeth you will come to know the reality--- if you were to visit daarul hadeeth you would say this is Ibn Abaas or Umar (Bin Khataab) ---Or this is Imam ash-Shaafie and Maalik or this is (Ahmad) bin Hanbal ,the ideology has resembled" Another poet said about Shaykh Muqbil ‘...he memorized all chains of hadeeth and all authentic narrations, he has possessed all (high) status and all positions...’
&$ r
Also another poet said: "...I asked Imam ash-Shafie and Maalik and Nuymaan CC C C C C C and al-Imam Ibn Hanbal. They all said (Muqbil) Ibn Haadee is our successor in the hadeeth of the Chosen Prophet the Best of Messengers..." Reference: The appedix of the written biography of Shaykh Muqbil regarding himself, print Daarul Aathaar. Side Note: The reason we cannot rebuke ash-Shaykh Muqbil for the exaggeration of some of the poets for him, is the same reason we cannot rebuke Shaykh Yahya al hajooree , which is perhaps while the poet was reading those exaggerated words in the presence of Shaykh Muqbil, the Shaykh was preoccupied with papers or with other things which may distract a person from following up each word in the poetry. Bearing in mind that some of those poets that Spubs are now attacking are from the students of Ash-Shaykh Muqbil, who have wrote some poetry praising Shaykh Muqbil, so is Ash-Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee a hadaadee too???
Also you may even found such exaggerations found with some of the poets who praise Shaykh Rabee, for example a poet said in his praise for Shaykh Rabee':
‚"UW B% ƒem[ h5 \IP@A --- Y"+m B.QgR 7"% Y"+m Rabee, no one resembles Rabee---“You are not able to (find) an equal for him if you wished” Whereas ash-Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree advised the poets not to exaggerate in words and not to over praise him as found on this thread, while Ash-Shaykh Sa’eed D’aas also brought this to mentioning in the following poetry:
< - $ =- - 3- ` %/ j/ e4 &O- W 4 4„ R/ O4 W - '/ W 4 … u4- " * - p , - J B< v& / 4 Q%&- i < K< <[ *** N/ n $ - / †- ‡- HU%& ‘If it wasn’t for him disliking to be praised – the horizon of the earth would shine via my ink of praise’ So why does Spubs conceal these texts of poetry from the public??? Spubs have recently mentioned some lines of poetry against Shaykh Yahya which was recited on the return of Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree from Hajj some years back, where Ash-Shaykh Yahya rapidly openly advised those poets regarding such exaggerations ,which Ash-Shaykh Yahya brought to notice at that time, as found on the below transcription: “...I have a request for my fellow brothers which I hope they carry out, while by the will of Allah I have a good thought for them, it is not to allow our love for each other leads us to exaggerate in words, may Allah reward you, by Allah I dislike the likes of theses exaggerations from the core of my heart, also may Allah bless you, we are not equivalent to anything rather who from us is at a higher level than Ibn Qataan and to the Imaams, they are in reality are the bearers of the religion, we are not except people who benefit from them, we learn basically under their books, the books of research of defects of hadeeth , their opinions, their narrations, we ask Allah to show mercy upon them and make us tread their path upon the Book of Allah and Sunnah of the Messenger – CC C C CC C C CC C C -, this is what I request from my fellow brothers , may Allah bless you...We should not allow our love for each other to leads to a degree where a person says in a poetry , which he places us in the position of those who you are aware of, not (Imam) Ibn Qataan nor other than him, we are merely students of knowledge...”
!0 FA B"0 1 )& D0 E
Also below is another advice by Shaykh Yahya al-hajooree which he gave to the poets regarding such exaggerated poetry lines which spubs are now using against Shaykh Yahya, while Shaykh Yahya at that time has already advised regarding them, as found on the below transcription: “May Allah reward you and may Allah pardon me and you, by Allah...by Allah we are less than that, we are merely students of knowledge, we ask Allah to pardon us and look down up our short comings, by Allah we confess to Allah our weakness and powerlessness, we ask Allah to accept our repentance, while we are those who fall short and commit sins. Our brothers , may
Allah preserve them, have a high level of good thoughts for us, while by no means we are not at this level, by no means we are not at this level, I will benefit you, take it from me directly, I am by Allah not at this level, we are merely students of knowledge, in dire need for Allah, weak ones, we ask Allah, the lord of mankind to look down upon our short comings, and to pardon our brothers (i.e. the poets), Allah’s aid is sought and may Allah reward you.” http://aloloom.net/vb/showthread.php?t=1198 So why has spubs concealed the aforementioned advice of Shaykh Yahya for those lines of poetry??? Spubs stated: Abu Hatim Sa'eed bin Di'aas al-Yaafi'ee recited the following lines upon Yahya alHajuri's return from Hajj in 1428H: ... And he (al-Hajuri) has the forbearance (kindness) of alMaahi (the Eraser [of falsehood, shirk]), the Messenger. And (he, Yahya) has of Ali, his bravery and vigour... Here Spubs are attempting to deceive the public that the lines of poetry that they have been using against Shaykh Yahya, is by Shaykh Sa’eed bin Da’as which is not true, as it is by an individual who has become from the followers of Ubayd al-Jaabiree, once Shaykh Yahya advised him regarding his extremism , as you can notice below that this particular issue has already been addressed by the noble brother Abu Musab Husain al-Hajooree , where he comments on the following accusation of Arafaat: ‘Arafaat said:“ The twelfth principle: The Extremism (that people have) towards Al-Hajooree's personality, and he (i.e. ash-Shaykh Yahya) is one that is pleased with it, and takes it as his Manhaj.” "I say: I swear by the everlasting existence of Allâh you have lied! He is not pleased with extremism towards him or other than him. And his advice and articles to those that have had extremism towards him (i.e. ash-Shaykh Yahya) or towards other than him are widespread in tapes, and quoted in treatises as a refutation against the oppressive Fitnah makers like yourself (oh ‘Arafaat). And some of them who possess extremism, (then) the Shaykh has disapproved of this from them and anger becomes apparent on his face from what he hears from them, like Abdullah Al-Qaadhee, he is the one whose poetry you have narrated in your insignificant little papers, saying:
>ˆ`@A u1,Ip G0P%& 'WA *** u#,(F L`F$%& G#,z& 'W B%A And he (al-Hajooree) has the forbearance (kindness) of al-Maahi (the Eraser [of falsehood, shirk]), the Messenger. And (he, Yahya) has of Ali, his bravery and vigour. He (i.e. Abdullah al-Qaadhee) has become infatuated and has joined your Hizb, so look at where the returning point of the extremists is. So is it feasible to say that you have excused him (Abdullah Al-Qaadee) from this extremism so that you may actualize what you want from accusing the Shaykh and the Daar with Ghuloo, or is it that you are an abode for the infatuated ones? And both of the two are bitter.
Some from amongst them (i.e. the poets) tongue may slip with a word, and would then retract from it, and perhaps the Shaykh would sometimes not pay attention to focusing on the poem and would be preoccupied with an affair, especially when these poems are being read and the Shaykh is looking over the questions (passed forward to him), so by that the attention of the Shaykh is preoccupied and therefore he does not notice this word and if he was to he would surely rebuke it as he has rebuked other than it." Ref: A Refutation upon „Arafaat in what he Perpetrated from Ignorance, Treachery and Tampered statements in: “The Immediate Clarification” 31 Abu Khadeejah stated: “He claimed that the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) erred in the ways and means of da'wah! i.e. that he erred in the wasaa'il of dawah. That shows both his ignorance and misguidance.” This is a foul attempt by Abu Khadeejah to tamper Shaykh Yahya’s speech out of context whereas the words of Shaikh Yahyaa were misconstrued, while incorrectly posed to Shaikh alFawzaan and others by the followers of Saalih al Bakri, and now by the new hizb group of alMar'ee. Shaikh Yahyaa pastly refuted the likes who spread such doubts such as az-Za'aabee whereas Ash-Shaykh Yahya completely refuted the ignorant claims on this subject. As found here in PDF Form (Translated in English). What Shaikh Yahyaa said was consistent with what the scholars of Ahl As-sunnah have mentioned regarding this issue based on the texts, and they have clarified the ijtihaad of the Noble Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu'alayhi wasallam: The Fatwa Committee has stated: “Yes the messengers and prophets make mistakes however Allah, The Most High, does not acknowledge (leave) them upon it rather he clarifies for them their mistakes as a mercy to them and their nations and pardons their errors and accepts from them their repentance…” Number of the Fatwa #6290 Likewise Ash-Shaykh Albany, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “We say that if he (the Messenger alayhi as-salaatu was-salaam) were to perform ijtihaad then be mistaken (in his judgment) then how promptly he would be corrected by the revelation…If it comes the likes of the statement of Allah, The Most High,:
*
D%`@ A 7Q1*
He frowned and turned away So therefore this is a prime example (that the prophet perform Ijtihaad however was corrected by revelation) so how do we say that the messenger does not perform ijtihaad, while here he has indeed perform ijtihaad however he was not acknowledged (left) upon (the error)
*
‰$=d%& BP8HJK $=dR A[ D=\R B0P% kRmOR ,WA*
"But what could tell you that per chance he might become pure (from sins)? Or that he might receive admonition, and that the admonition might profit him?" Reference: Silsilatul Huda wan Noor #306 And in the tafseer of Al-Imam ash-Shinqeeti, is the following statement: “...The scholars have considered the speech of al-Junayd to be correct “the good deeds of the pious are bad deeds to al-Muqarraabeen (i.e. the close servants to Allah) or what is intended is similar to what has come in the Quran of some of his (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) acts of Ijtihaad and in the way of da’wah whereas his (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) ijtihaad is unaccepted, therefore it affects him greatly, similar to the story of Ibn Umm Maktoom whereas he was disciplined for it:
*
D%`@ A 7Q1*
He frowned and turned away And its likes even if it is after the descending of this surah, except that it is (all) from one angle...” Ref: Adwaa al-Bayyaan (677/8) taken from the second refutation of Husayn al-Hajooree upon Arafaat (1) Ash-Shaikh Yahyaa stated in his radd of Za'aabee regarding the aforementioned verse which Ash-Shaykh Albany mentioned: “This is from the means of Dawah, the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, turned his attention to some of the chiefs of Quraysh, he, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, gave them admonition and enticed them to accept Al-Islam...” Al-Qattaan, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated in his tafseer of Surah “Abasa": "...As for who considered himself independent by his wealth and strength from Allah then you are giving him attention with enthusiasm , so he may accept Islam while you are showing him importance in conveying your da’wah to him..." Ash-Shaikh Yahyaa stated in his radd of Za’aabee: “As for the word 'mistake', then in this affair the scholars agree, those (scholars) that venerate the messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, with due veneration, and they venerate his legislation as a clarification from them for the true legislation, they are those who take this from the Quran and the Sunnah, and that is not in contradiction with his status and his lofty position, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.” Abu Khadeejah stated: “Shaikh al-Fawzaan (hafidhahullaah) was read some of al-Hajooree's sayings and he responded: "This is wicked speech, don't learn from him.”" As for what Spubs have quoted regarding an old audio clip of Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan then its likes has already been clarified to the degree that even Muhammad bin AbdulWahaab al-
Wasaabee previously said: “...This man who brought forward the question to Shaykh al-Fawzan what is apparent to me is that he from those have severe hatred for Shaykh Yahya, may Allah preserve him, whereas he brought forward a general question while such matters should not be presented with such generality (especially) in the public lessons, rather the Shaykh (i.e. alFawzaan) should be asked in a tranquil sitting while he (i.e. the questioner) should mention who he is referring to ,this is what is appropriate for him to do, from the view point (i.e. of the questioner) , from another view point what is apparent to me is that Ash-Shaykh al-Fawzaan hasten in the answer (i.e. of the question)...so it is upon Shaykh al-Fawzan to re-examine (the issue) ...What is requested from Ash-Shaykh al-Fawzaan to review this issue and to know that the people of innovations and desires have widely spread this speech of his, they have become delighted by it, whereas they began to make copies of it, in order to refute Ash-Shaykh Yahya alHajooree...” Side Note: The aforementioned refutation of Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree regarding this issue was posted and highly praised on the website of Sahab on the year 2004, as found on this thread: http://www.sahab.net/foru /**********?showtopic=38937 , however on the other hand we find spubs making foul attempts to dispraise this well-prepared refutation of Shaykh Yahya alHajooree, and Allah's aid is sought. Abu Khadeejah stated: He claims that the "majority of the Sunnah is revelation". Majority?! Rather ALL of the Sunnah is revelation for the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) did not speak from his desires. None of us should be in doubt with respect to this deviation. This is another impudent attempt by Abu Khadeejah to tamper Shaykh Yahya’s speech out of context; nevertheless I will quote below the exact speech of Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree along with its full context to allow the readers to make a comparison between Shaykh Yahya’s speech to the following quotes of the scholars: Al-Imam ash-Shaatibee, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “Verily the hadeeth is either by a revelation alone or either by an ijtihaad of the Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) which is correctly approved by the revelation...” Ref: al-Muwaafaqaat (335/4). Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “Ibn Battah stated as in what he wrote to Ibn Shaaqilaa of answers to numerous of matters , whereas he said “and the proof that his (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) sunnah and his commands had indeed within it of that which is not by revelation ,which it was by his opinions and judgements, whereas he was indeed admonished regarding some of them , if he was commanded (i.e. by Allah) for them then he would have not been admonished regarding them, and from this perspective is his judgement pertaining to the captives of (the battle) of Badr...al-Qaadhi said (Imam) Ahmad has indeed pointed towards the correctness of what Abu Abdillah Ibn Battah has stated...” Al-Musawwadah page :(507) The Author of the book “al-Mahsool” (366/4) “The fifth angle of it is that some of the acts of Sunnah which are ascribed to the Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam), if all was from the revelation then there wouldn’t be an extra benefit for such an addition...”
The exact speech of Shaykh Yahya where he stated: “The Ijtihaad of the prophet is success granted from Allâh, so the Sunnah is Tawqeefiyyah (restricted to the texts) and Tawfeeqiyyah (success granted from Allâh). As for it being upon Tawqeef (i.e. it being restricted to the texts), then this is upon a (specific) proof, that Allah has ordered him with. And as for it being upon Tawfeeq (success granted from Allâh) then the revelation agrees with it.” And this establishment is good; within it is the status of the prophet and the status of his Sunnah. For the origin of what the prophet came with is revelation from The Lord of all that exists, from it is the Qur’ân, and all of it is revelation, and from it is the Sunnah and most of it is revelation. And I have clarified, that from the Sunnah there is that which is Tawqeefi, i.e. revelation from Allah, and from it there is that which he made Ijtihaad within and his Lord granted him success concerning that (particular) Ijtihaad and his lord affirmed it for him; the one who honoured him with this degree, the degree of Ijtihaad and increased him in honour by way of his establishment of that matter. And it is for this reason that I said: “As for it being upon Tawqeef (i.e. it being restricted to the texts), then this is upon a (specific) proof, that Allah has ordered him with” and all of this is great praise, veneration for him, and an extolling of his status.And as for it being upon Tawfeeq (success granted from Allâh), then the revelation agrees with this.” End of quote Ash-Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree, may Allah preserve him, previously said in his refutation of azZa’aabee: “As for the noble messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, then Allah is responsible for his welfare, He protects him and his legislation with revelation, to the extent that it (i.e. his Sharee ah) had reached the highest of perfection and completion, which no other legislation from the legislations of the heavens has come with.” !
Reference here. The Noble Brother Husayn al-Hajooree comments by saying: “So what is all of this strange tampering with the context of the Shaykh's speech; that which affirms that the Sunnah is restriction to the texts and success granted from Allâh, his speech returns back to the fact that all of his Sunnah is revelation, either restricted to the texts or direction from Allâh as you can see, (however the messenger said) “If you are not shy, then do as you wish”… Reference here. Read more regarding this topic here. Side Note: Ash-Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, may Allah preserve him, his speech pertaining to this matter, is not in opposition to the aforementioned quotes of the scholars due to the fact Shaykh al-Fawzaan only intends to criticise those who say the sunnah does not return back to the fact that all of it is revelation, as he rebuked that statement in his sharh of Masaa’il alJaahiliyyah (226) where he said: “...And the statement of the one who said verily the sunnah is not revelation from Allah rather it is merely Ijtihaad from the messenger” Likewise on the old audio clip for Shaykh Fawzaan - which Spubs are deceiving the public to be new - , therein Ash-Shaykh al-Fawzaan said: “...And as for the affairs of the legislation, then they are tawqeefee...”
The Shaykh clarified what he intended by the word tawqeefee, as he said right after it: “they are revelation from Allaah...” So Shaykh al-Fawzaan only intends to criticise those who say the sunnah does not return back to the fact that all of it is revelation. And as for Shaykh Yahya’s speech then it is as the brother Husayn al-Hajooree said: “...the Shaykh's speech; that which affirms that the Sunnah is restriction to the texts and success granted from Allâh, his speech returns back to the fact that all of his Sunnah is revelation, either restricted to the texts or direction from Allâh as you can see...” The aforementioned source, print daarul baseerah. Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Saalih Al 'Uthaimeen said regarding the explanation of Allah's statement: " And whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah..." And then there is an issue. Is it upon the Messenger ( CC C C C CC C C C CC C C C ) to make Ijtihaad? The answer: Yes. his sunnah is of two types. That which is based on Ijtihaad and that which is based on revelation..."
!0 F A B"0 1 )& D0 E
)& Š, r[ K L` R C ' WA %,P % C ` n $"*8 @ C G K C _)& B( #m 1 C ' +& C u W‚P C OT C F$ C %& C Y… C ) D C @ C B C C _ S("U C %& L, C n C u%‹*W ,HvA):80 ‡,*H%& (,Œ"8# !."01 x,H0Fm[ ,(K D%`@ 'WA O.JIR h[ !0FA B"01 )& D0E GQH0% ;v G#AA uRe,.JZ&Ž h,1`9 BJHFA !P9:a&`I%& Shaykh Rabee' Ibn Haadee Al-Madkhalee - May Allah distance him from the Shayaateen from mankind - mentioned in his treatise: explanation of the Hadeeth; "The Religion Is Advice" All of the Sunnah or most of it is revelation, Allah glorified and exalted be He said in praise of the messenger may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family:
4 R- W, A- D #` - R < G # / A- 35 ` v- < h/ 45 ‰ ` . - %&- / '4 1 - i < …H nor does he speak of (his own) desire; it is only a revelation revealed [An-Najm 3-4] Abdullah Bin 'Amr Bin Al-'Aas used to write everything that he heard from the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family -, so the Quraish forbade him from doing so and said: Is it that you write everything that you hear whilst the messenger of Allah may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family- is but a human that talks whilst he is angry and whilst he is joyful? He said: So I refrained from writing and mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - so he indicated with his finger towards his mouth and he said: Write, for by The One in who's hand my soul is in, nothing exits from it (i.e. my mouth) except it is truth
[footnotes by Fawaaz Al-Jaza'iree: Reported by Ahmed and Ibn Abee Shaybah and Abu Dawood and Ad-Daarami, and the Hadeeth is Saheeh] And the verse is how you have heard it...:
4 R- W, A- D #` - R < G # / A- 35 ` v- < h/ 45 ‰ ` . - %&- / '4 1 - i < …H nor does he speak of (his own) desire; it is only a revelation revealed [An-Najm 3-4] ...And the Hadeeth coincides with the verse The Sunnah, if it is not all revelation, then most of it is revelation that was revealed, and from that (revelation) is the Ahadeeth Al-Qudsiyyah... end of that which was intended from the quote Spubs stated: And as for the bold statement that "we do not take the saying of anyone, even the Messenger, except with proof," this was made by one of the followers of al-Hajuri and affirmed by al-Hajuri, and this is a type of boldness and disrespect of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), This is a ludicrous crime by Spubs, from several angles: Firstly: the speech of the writer has been altered and distorted, whereas the exact speech of the writer will be mentioned below. Secondly: the writer consciously marked his speech pertaining to his sentence “...this is the messenger of Allah...” with an arabic semicolon (i.e. ) to separate between the aforementioned sentence and the sentence after it.
L` T CC C C C +C C 7 " CC C C C % L` C C T CC C C C %& C C Vs3”
Thirdly: as the saying goes “
C
C
C
(the imposition of a statement is not a
statement - on its own -), as you may notice that some great scholars generally praised the book of Abul Hasan al-Maribee entitled (As-Siraaj Al-Wihaaj) while it was later clarified by Shaykh Rabee and others the errors of that book however such errors was not ascribed to those great scholars nor said that they affirmed such errors!!! Due to the possibility that they may have browsed through the book briefly, or browsed through the majority of it or other than that from the legitimate excuses. Fourthly: in what spubs distributed that ash-Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan spoke against the statements of Shaykh Yahya, therein it was stated in the question posed to Shaykh al-Fawzan regarding the so called statements of Shaykh Yahya: “...says that the saying of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and whoever is less than him is not accepted except with an acceptable evidence...” The below refutation by Husayn al-Hajooree regarding Arafaat’s statement pertaining to this issue will show the reader this ludicrous crime by spubs was all built upon deception and trickery.
Arafaat said: I say: look at the ignorance of this writer! Is the writer and the one giving an introduction for him ignorant that the Messenger does not speak except the truth, and he does not say except the truth, may my mother and father be sacrificed for him. The messenger does not say or do (anything) which is in relation to the religion except (that which is in accordance) to revelation from Allâh the Most High. And look at the repulsiveness of his statement ‘his statement is not accepted except with a proof!! Or (with a) justifiable evidence!!’” The Noble Brother Husayn al-Hajooree said: I say: Firstly, (about) your statement: “And look at the repulsiveness of his statement: ‘…his statement is not accepted except with a proof!! Or (with a) justifiable evidence!!’”, i.e. the statement of the Prophet , then this is a lie against him (i.e. the writer of this article), or (it is the case that) you are purposely trying to act like you do not understand correctly (in order to) deceive (others), that is because the brother said: “…this is the messenger of Allâh …”, and at this point the speech of the brother ended, and the meaning of it is- this is the messenger of Allâh who had said what had preceded, then he said: “…as for other than him…” i.e. other than the Prophet . - And the letter Faa (corresponding to: 'as for') in his statement: “Fa Man…”1 is Isti’naafiyyah (A faa used for renewing a sentence). (Then he said) “…his statement is not accepted except with a proof…at the same time we have reverence for the one that says this…”, if he is from the scholars of the Sunnah, “…his statement is not accepted except with a proof…”, and this is something that every Muslim knows, the fact that the statement of the Messenger of Allâh is a proof and an evidence (in itself), Allâh the most high says:
< .9- W, A- - <•A
!"%[ a&d1 !.Q"cR A[ uHJK !.Q"c@ h[ •$W[ '1 h`8%,~R 'Rd%& md]"0K And let those who oppose the Messenger's (Muhammad ) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements, etc) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant, etc.) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them. (An-Nur 24:63) And other than that from proofs. (So the term) 'FaaHadha' is from the things that connect (the sentences together) by word and separates (the sentences) by meaning, a ‘Master project’ has been authored concerning this (subject), which is entitled: (That which is Connected by Word and is Separated by Meaning in the noble Quran), from Surah Yaseen to the end of the noble Quran, and read what As-Suyooti, may Allâh have mercy upon him, has clarified concerning this subject in Al-Itqaan, page 276/1 Daar Al-Hadeeth print.
Secondly: Not every article that the Shaykh gives an introduction for becomes one of his statements, because perhaps he may flick through an article quickly, or flick through majority of it and then give permission for its distribution, otherwise impose this imposition upon those that had given an introduction to the book of Abul-Hasan (As-Siraaj Al-Wihaaj) due to what is in it from error, ...” Abu Khadeejah stated: “He falsely accused the Sahaabah (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) of initiating the bid'ah of irjaa.” This fabrication was originated in the fitnah of Abul Hasan al-Maribee; almost ten years ago, Abu Khadeejah transferred it into his "gun Barrel" without ascribing it to his exemplars and thought his hands had become filled with attainment against Shaykh Yahya. The Noble Brother al-Husayn al-Hajooree, may Allah reward him, stated in his refutation on the fabrications of Arafaat. “I say: Speech has preceded concerning this in the article: ‘The statements of Ash-Shaykh Yahya in what he was criticised for from affairs’ of which the following is the summary of: This is from among the fabrications that he has been accused with, he merely narrated from Ibn Abil-‘Izz Al-Hanafee, may Allâh the most high have mercy upon him in his explanation of At-Tahaawiyyah, page 324 – print Al-Maktab Al-Islaami, without any addition or decrease, and neither did he accuse the honourable companion with that, may Allâh be pleased with him, for he (i.e. Ash-Shaykh Yahya) said: Abil-‘Izz said: Indeed the doubt that had come upon the Murjiah had occurred to some of the earlier ones,...and they are Qudaamah bin ‘Abdullah (his name is actually Qudaamah Bin Madh’oon) and his companions…” to end of the quote. So they became overjoyed (thinking that they could defame ash-Shaykh Yahya) by this statement and added some words to it!! From them is their statement: ‘The first one to profess Al-Irjaa was Abdullah Bin Madh’oon’ and in another narration of theirs ‘Uthmaan Bin Madh’oon’, and from them is their statement: ‘Indeed there are from the Sahaabah those that fell into AlIrjaa’ and other than that from statements that are based upon the narrating of lies and fabrications. And all of these statements are accusations upon him (Shaykh Yahya), that which the narrator is incapable of affirming from a tape or a book, except perhaps narrating from something that is based upon ‘Qeel1 and what will make you come to know what Qeel is? And Ash-Shaykh Yahya, may Allah the most high grant him success, rebukes all of these statements as we have heard from him a long time ago, the most that the Shaykh had within his speech which is actually affirmed is that he quoted from Imaam Abil-‘Izz, may Allah the most high have mercy upon him, especially the fact that he was teaching the explanation of AtTahaawiyyah (at the time of saying this statement), so he is merely quoting here and not saying (it from himself) and he was merely relaying speech from an Imaam (at the point of when he was reading this) not finding faults. And since some time ago, perhaps a year ago, he looked into this issue (deeper) and refrained from engaging in it, and some of his students gathered a compilation (of narrations concerning the affair) at the time and read the summary of it to him (i.e. Ash-Shaykh Yahya), so this student had concluded that this statement of Imaam Ibn Abil-‘Izz, may Allah the most high have mercy upon him, is incorrect and that he (Imaam Ibn Abil-‘Izz) had erred in his relaying of it from Shaykh Al-Islam, may Allah the most high have mercy upon him (return back to Majmoo’ AlFataawa, volume number 11, page 403 and that which is before it). So he (Ash-Shaykh Yahya)
retracted from this statement, especially (seeing) that he had researched and then ordered his students to look into the chains of these narrations, then it had become clear that many of the additional wordings and narrations were not affirmed! Despite this, these people are still becoming overly rejoiced with their lies, exaggerations and distortions, to the extent that they have extracted the issues from the taking place of research, looking into (affairs), deeming issues to be correct and wrong to the dictionary of revilements, fountain of lying and a sea of defamation!!
‚"QF ‰Ov[ `v '(+ !01[ !?+$K BJ0=,p D01 ;(PR ;= ;n Say (O Muhammad to mankind): "Each one does according to Shakilatihi (i.e. his way or his religion or his intentions, etc.), and your Lord knows best of him whose path (religion, etc.) is right." (Al-Isra 17:84) A Side Note: Ibn Abil-‘Izz said in his Sharhu of At-Tahaawiyyah : ...in opposition to the Murji'ah, whereas their (i.e. the Murjiah’s) doubt, had occurred to some of the earlier ones...” (page 252, print Daarul Gadd al-Jadeed) Ash-Shaykh Muhammad Amaan al-Jaami , may Allah have mercy upon him, quoted the aforementioned statement of Abil-‘Izz then commented saying: “From the Sahaabah (radhi Allaahu 'anhum) rather from the foremost to accept to Islam, due to their misunderstanding of the verse and their misinterpretation.” As found here in audio form in the Shaykh's explanation of Sharhu At-Tahaawiyyah . So lets see if Spubs are going to attack ash-Shaykh Muhammad Amaan al-Jaami, as they attacked Ash-Shaykh Yahya??? Spubs stated: “He falsely accused some of the Sahaabah (radhi Allaahu 'anhum) of participating in the killing of Uthmaan (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu)." Why has the criticism of Spubs pertaining to this statement not come except after ash-Shaykh Yahya removed that statement from the new print of his book almost seven years ago, does that not prove that they hold tight to moss??? The Noble Brother Husayn al-Hajooree, may Allah reward him, said: I say: The Shaykh, may Allâh preserve him, removed it due to the statement of Shaykh Al-Islaam: “…secondly, because the best of the Muslims, not(even) one of them are considered to have shed the blood of 'Uthman, neither did they kill him or order his killing; rather a group from the mischief makers of the land killed him, mobs from the villages and people of Fitnah...”– End of his statement. The historians have mentioned some of the companions that shared in the killing of 'Uthman, as is in 'Taareekh Al-Madeenah' of Ibn Shabbah and others. So when the Shaykh, may Allâh preserve him, saw that the chains were not authentic, he removed it from the second print, and the truth is more deserving of being followed. This in itself is knowledge based implementation, if a ruling is built upon something that is not affirmed and it is known that it is not affirmed, then the ruling which is built upon it is likewise to be considered not affirmed.
Whereas the noble brother Husayn al-Hajooree has already clarified the doubts pertaining to this issue in his refutation entitled (The Intelligible Clarification upon Some of the Lies and Mindlessness of Mustafa Mubram) which is in PDF form here (Translated to English). Spubs translated the following speech of Shaykh Yahya regarding this matter: I say: This saying that I say that the Companions participated in the killing of Uthmaan, this occurred becase Ibn Katheer and a group of the people of knowledge mentioned that Muhammad bin Abi Bakr alSiddeeq (radiallaahu anhu), and specifically this one only, then they mentioned this, and we investigated the issue and found that within (the matter) are (reports) whose chains are not established and we said, it was in the context of the investigation, not that we actually affirm that they participating in the killing of Uthmaan, however in the context of the research, in accordance with what was mentioned by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wal-Nihaayah and Ibn Sa'd in al-Tabaqaat, then when Shaykh al-Islaam indicated that the chains of narration are not established, we did not say this except upon the (basis of) the apparentness of statements. As for it being said that we speak with this, then never, refuge is from Allaah, the Companions did not participate in the killing of Uthmaan, rather the Khawaarij killed him. Then Spubs stated: As for al-Hajuri's claim regarding Ibn Katheer, then this is a lie ,for Ibn Katheer does not mention that Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was a companion.... Ibn Katheer has mentioned Muhammad bin Abee Bakr from being from the companions, as found on his statement below: “...it is not authenticated upon any of the companions...however some of them (i.e. sahaabahs) use to wish that he (i.e. Uthman bin Affaan) removes himself from the rulership, such as Ammaar bin Yaasir and Muhammad bin Abee Bakr and Amr bin alHamq and other than them” Ref: al-Bidaayah (7/221): As for what spubs quoted from Ibn Katheer pertaining to this issue, then it was in the following context ,where Ibn Katheer said: “...The likes of this person( i.e. Abdullah bin Abee Talhah) is befitting to be considered from the sigaar as-Sahaabah; merely for the reason of him eye witnessing (the Prophet), for verily they (i.e. some of the scholars of hadeeth) have considered Muhammad bin Abee Bakr as-Sadeeq from them (i.e. sahaabas), but he was born in the area of the tree in the time of al-Ihraam during Hajjatul al-Wadaa’, so he was (only) present for approximately a hundred days prior to the passing away of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) while they did not mention that he was brought to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor that he saw him, Therefore Abdullah bin Abee Talhah is foremost to be considered from the sigaar as-sahaabahs than Muhammad bin Abee Bakr, Allah knows best.” So as you can see he is merely affirming the companionship of Abdullah bin Abee Talhah and proving that he is foremost to be considered from the sigaar as-sahaabahs if Muhammad bin Abee Bakr is considered from the sigaar as-sahaabee. Spubs stated: Muhammad bin Abi Bakr did not have companionship with the Messenger of Allaah and is not affirmed by the Scholars as being counted as a Companion, Ibn Hajar has mentioned Muhammad bin Abee Bakr in his book (al-Isaabah) along with the sahaabas and Ibn Abdul Barr and others from the scholars of hadeeth.
While Ibn Katheer mentioned in his aforementioned speech: “...verily they (i.e. some of the scholars of hadeeth) have considered Muhammad bin Abee Bakr as-Sadeeq from them (i.e. sahaabas)...” Spubs stated: ”...then went on fabricate a lie against Ibn Katheer (rahimahullaah) claiming that he affirmed this matter when Ibn Katheer said nothing of the sort.” Ash-Shaykh Yahya said in the aforementioned speech of his: "....then they (i.e. Ibn Katheer and others) mentioned this..." "...we said, it was in the context of research, not that we ourselves establish that they participatied in the killing of Uthmaan, rather in the context of research, according to what Ibn Katheer mentioned in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah..." Here Ash-Shaykh Yahya is merely saying that Ibn Katheer and others brought mentioning of it, (i.e. in the context of research not actually affirming it). Whereas even Spubs stated this, where they said: “...that Ibn Katheer himself after mentioning what some of the historians mentioned that Muhammad bin Abi Bakr participated in the killing of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu)…" Spubs stated: “...and he began to throw the blame upon the Scholars (like Ibn Katheer, alDhahabi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Sa'd and others), making it appear that this is what they mentioned and he merely spoke on the basis of that.” As for al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Sa'd and others then have indeed brought mentioning of this matter in some of their books, as been made clear on this PDF here. Spubs stated: “...where he removed this section from his book without any clarification or repentance and without any explanation as to why he removed that section.” This statement of Spubs reminds us of the following statement of Mubram where the Noble brother Husayn al-Hajooree already clarified: Mubram said: And he has been sufficed by removing the passage from his book, and printing it again without repentance (for what he had previously said) Husayn al-Hajooree commented saying: I say: Oh you small ignoramus, if an 'Aalim says that a Hadeeth is affirmed or that it lacks affirmation, due to its fame or by way of Ijtihaad, and then is mistaken in regards to that, or he deems the one who quoted it as being reliable. Then if the opposite of what he said becomes clear to him, is repentance incumbent upon him in that instance?!! Or is it sufficient for him to turn towards to that which became clear to him regarding that Hadeeth, just as Imaam Al-Waadi'ee did when quoting Hadeeth which he thought to be authentic, then their defects became apparent to him so he moved them from his Saheeh Musnad to his book “Defective Hadeeth”. And likewise as Al-Imaam Al-Albaanee did - may Allah have mercy upon him – when he retracted from Hadeeth that he had judged with authenticity or deemed them to be weak, then the opposite of that became manifest to him (i.e. that he had erroneously graded the Hadeeth), as is in the book “Taraaji'aat Al-'Alaamatil-Al-Albaanee Feemaa Nassa 'Alayhaa Tasheehan wa Daafan”, and (also) many others from the Imaams that
were before them. Then if this is incumbent upon him (to repent), then revise that for us Oh you thorough investigator of the sources!! As for mankind, they repent to Allah glorified and exalted be He, and seek his forgiveness from that which they have knowledge of from their sins, and from that which they do not have knowledge of. How excellent is this commendable act, the messenger of Allah said: “By Allah, I seek forgiveness from Allah and I repent to Him more than seventy times a day”. It was extracted by Al-Bukhaaree from the path of Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him. And in Saheeh Muslim on the authority of Al-Agharr Al-Mazanee, may Allah be pleased with him: The messenger of Allah said: “Oh you people, repent to Allah, for verily in one day I repent to Allah more than one hundred times”. A Side Note: Why has Spubs not ascribed such an error to Ash-Shaykh Muqbil ,while he has in fact given an introduction to the aforementioned book and praised it, or does spubs erroneous principle only apply for Shaykh Yahya??? Br. Moosa added: Now let me put the exact statement of Ibn Katheer in Arabic so that everyone can see the deception of SPUBS regarding the Suhbah (companionship) of Muhammad Ibn Abee Bakr.
;JT + G bm 9[ B +,]c u %& C ' W C O #[ 1 C „c R C 3 &d .K + C G bm A B(0 F[ u C %& C ’P + C h† ' W C €,H %& C ’P + C •$ =d , C W[ A , C C ' C B0JT C C +,]c C R C W O( ]W A $ F, R ' + m,(P = C , $ W†& W C B*8 9 C Y0 “ ` R C h, = C !.”P + C '? % C A ,B0P K C ' W C > F A B C = C !.0 = ; 1 C )& G bm 1 C C ' C % C e` C , v$ C + C BH C h,(U !v$"| A i(]%& '+ A$(1 A , $?+ G+[ '+" " C C C C , C C C C
Bidayah Wan Nihayah (page 1116 Bait Al Afkaar Ad Duwaleeyah) Translation: As for what some mention regarding some of the companions giving him ('Uthmaan) up and being pleased with his murder then this is not authentic from any one of the companions. Rather all of them disliked it and cursed those who did it. But some of them wished that he removed himself from leadership such as 'Ammar Ibn Yasaar, Muhammad Ibn Abee Bakr, and 'Amr Ibn Himq and other than them. Shaykh Mohammed Bin Saalih Al-'Uthaymeen mentioned in his book: 'Sharh Nuzhatin-Nadhr Fee Tawdeeh Nukhbatil-Fakhar' Dar-Al-Athaar print page 250 In explanation of the statement of Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr regarding who is classed as a companion Al-Haafidh said: "he is the one who met the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - whilst believing in him and died upon Al-Islaam, even if he feel into apostasy according to that which is most correct. Shaykh Al-'Uthaymeen said: "his statement [whilst believing in him] meaning: (believing) in the messenger - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - encompasses he who believed in him in literally ( CC C C C ) and he who believed in him by way of judicial valuation ( C C CC C C C C C ). as for the one who believes in literally; then that is clear that it is the one who met the messenger -may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - whilst he was someone who could differentiate and who possessed intellect and thus believed in him. as for the one who believed by way of judicial valuation; then it is the one who met the prophet - may
( , ? #
uT"T #
the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family- whilst he did not reach the age of differentiation, however he was born to two Muslim parents; just like Muhammad Bin Abee Bakr. For indeed Muhammad Bin Abee Bakr was born in the year of the farewell pilgrimage, and the messenger- may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - was at DhulHulaifah when his mother Asmaa bint 'Umays gave birth to him so therefore there is no doubt that he did not reach the age of differentiation in the lifetime of the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - because between his birth and the death of the messenger - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - was merely months. Then due to this he is classed as a companion, because he believed in the messenger - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - by way of judicial valuation and that incorporates he who believed in the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - before he was even sent as a messenger - before he was informed the example of which is is Waraqah Bin Nawfal, the one whom Khadijah came to with the messenger of Allah - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - and he informed him of that which he saw, thus he believed in the messenger - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his - and said: ' indeed that was the archangel which came to Musa'." end of his statement And Haafidh Bin Ahmed Al-Hakami mentioned in his book Daleel Arbaabil-Falaah LiTahqeeq Finnil-Istilaah Dar Al-Imaam Ahmed print page 185: Q-77: "How many categories do the companions split into? A: Twelve different categories: …. and the twelfth category: he who saw the messenger of Allah whilst he was a small child.” end of his statement And 'Ali Bin Abdullah At-Tabreezi [Died 746] mentioned in Al-Kaafi under the chapter: categories of the companions “I say: Abu Abdillah Al-Haafidh made them into twelve categories: ...and the twelfth category: those young children and the infants who saw the messenger of Allah - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family – on the day of the conquest (of Makkah) and the farewell pilgrimage and other than that, they are counted amongst the companions, the like of: As-Saaib Bin Yazeed, Abdullah Bin Tha'labah, Abut-Tufayl 'Aamir Bin Waafilah and Abu Juhayfah.” end of his statement and likewise Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr said in the introduction to his well-renowned book, and UmmulBaab, Al-Isaabah Fee Ma'arifatis-Sahaabah: "and they unrestrictedly refer (to the companions) as he who saw the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family -, then he is a companion. this is understood to be the one who reached the age of differentiation, then the one who did not reach the age of differentiation, then the attribution of sighting (the messenger may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) is not affirmed. Yes, we hold it to be true that if the prophet may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - saw him, then he is classed
as a companion from that angle, as for the angle of narration then he is classed as a Taabi'ee." end of his statement As-Sakhaawee said in Fathul-Mugheeth, Maktabah Mustafa Baaz print 4/89: (speech regarding the companionship of the young one who did not reach the age of differentiation) "As for the young one who did not reach the age of differentiation, like Abdullah Bin Al-Haarith Bin Nawfal and Abdullah Bin Abee Talhah Al-Ansaaree and other than them from those whom the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - made Tahneek for and supplicated for them, and also Muhammad Bin Abee Bakr As-Sadeeq the one who was born before the passing away of the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - by three months and some days, for then even if the attribution of sighting (the messenger may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) is not correct then it is true that the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family - saw him. Thus he is a companion from that angle specifically." end of his statement And 'Alee Bin Abdillah At-Tabreezi mentioned in Al-Kaafi: "(The definition of a companion and his boundary) Then Know that they differ in regards to the definition of a companion. For that which is well known from the way of the people of Hadeeth is that every Muslim who saw the messenger of Allah – may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family – then he is from the companions. Al-Bukhari said in his book As-Saheeh: he who accompanied the prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family – or saw him from amongst the Muslims then he is from amongst his companions. The reason why Al-Islaam was made a condition is to remove the one who saw him whilst he was a disbeliever and then embraced Islaam after he passed away, like Shurayh and Abdullah Bin Sarjis according to the research concerning them and other than them. As-Sam'aani mentioned that this is from the linguistic angle and what is apparent is that it consists of the one whom accompanied him and sat with him for a long period by way of following him and taking from him. And he said: and this is the way of the scholars of fundamentals (Al-Usool) I say: that which is preferred with the majority of scholars of fundamentals is just like (which is preferred) amongst the people of Hadeeth. And on the authority of Ahmed Bin Hanbal: indeed the companions of the messenger of Allah may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family – is everyone who accompanied him for a year or a month or a day or an hour or he who saw him, then he is (classed as being) from the companions.
This is taken from the word Suhbah (i.e. companionship), there is no differing in (the permissibility) of unrestrictedly applying it upon the one who had very little companionship or the one who had a lot, like the one who visited (for example). For if a man swore that he did not accompany Zayd, then he has broken that oath if he accompanied him even for one moment. For if they say: the companions of Jannah, the companions of Hadeeth, and they only intended by them he who stuck to Hadeeth with perseverance for a long period, (or if they say) it has been narrated by Sa'eed Bin Al-Mussayib that he did not count amongst the companions except for he who was with the messenger of Allah - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family – for a year or two and fought a battle or two with him. Then we say: if that is affirmed then it is built upon a specific customary (definition) amongst a certain group. However there is no negligence upon the terminology, it is not permissible to ascribe that unrestrictedly otherwise it would necessitate that Jareer Bin Abdullah Al-Bajali – and whoever else enters into this with him from those whom are missing this condition – is not counted amongst the companions, whilst there is no differing in him being counted as a companion. Then if it is said: does this determine that the newcomer and the eye witness (i.e. saw the Prophet - may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) is (only) a newcomer and an eye witness and not a companion? I say: the intent (is him) not being a companion specifically, meaning one who was constantly in his presence, and negating that which is specific does not necessitate the negation of that which is general, and Allah knows best.” end of his statement. Mohammed Bin Shaykh 'Alee Bin Aadam Al-Ethiopi said in his explanation of Alfiyyatus-Suyooti Ibn Taymiyyah print after mentioning the five different opinions regarding the definition of a companion, upon arriving at the statement of Sa'eed Bin Al-Musayyib: "Al-'Iraaqi said: this is not authentic from Ibn Al-Musayyib, for within the chain of narration is Mohammed Bin 'Umar AlWaaqedi, and he is weak in Hadeeth”. End of his statement. This is to know that Spubs do not know what they are speaking about. More and more SPUBS are exposing themselves to be from those who lie. Abu Khadeejah stated: “He falsely accused Uthmaan bin Affaan (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) of innovating into Islaam” This is a blatant lie upon ash-Shaykh Yahya, whereas ash-Shaykh Yahya stated in his book (Ahkaamul Jum’ah) in the year 2002: “Some of the stubborn ones may say: if you indeed say this (first) athaan is an act of innovation, so was Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, an innovator by performing that? We say, may Allah forbid, for verily Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, was a rightly guided caliph...however he performed an ijtihaad...Uthman was mistaken in this ijtihaad of his, so he is rewarded for his ijtihaad and for his good intention...”
Page 315, print: Sharqain. This fabrication against Ash-Shaykh Yahya has been clarified in depth as found on this PDF Form here (Translated in English). Also Ash-Shaykh Muqbil, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “Not every person of innovation is an innovator, for 'Uthmaan, may Allah be pleased with him, ordered with the first Adhaan of Az-Zawraa'1, and if Abdullah Bin 'Umar entered a Masjid that the first Adhaan was being called in he would abandoned it and say: “Verily it is a Masjid of innovation”. Nevertheless, he did not say that 'Uthmaan is an innovator, rather 'Uthmaan made Ijtihaad, so whoever comes after 'Uthmaan, and the proof becomes apparent and he (still) blindly follows 'Uthmaan upon this (i.e. the first Adhaan), then he is to be regarded as an innovator because: “blind following in itself is an innovation”. [Ghaaratul-Ashritah 2/99] Spubs stated:”...he claims and Abu Dhar al-Ghifaree was a Takfeeree…" This fabrication was refuted almost ten years ago, let me quote below what was said regarding this false accusation against Shaykh Yahya at that time: We say, this, may Allah grant you success, is a great fabrication and a dangerous form of ignorance, he did not say it and the one that narrated this to you is incapable of ascribing it to a book or a tape, that is if he has with him a truthful narration, and there is no might or strength except with Allah. How is this so? When the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah in that which relates to sinning is well known, and he has a illustrious defence of the honourable companion; Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, in his book: “Radiance upon the Book; the rectification of the Ummah” (page 565-568 under the 83 Hadeeth) Daar Al-Aasimah print, which he authored more than five years ago (before 1418 i.e. 1996). Spubs stated:”...as was al-Barbahaaree affected by a takfiri mentality.” That was not the exact statement of Ash-Shaykh Yahya, rather ash-Shaykh Yahya mentioned what Ash-Shaykh Muqbil stated: Ash-Shaykh Muhammad bin Hizaam, may Allah preserve him,said that he personally heard ashShaykh Muqbil say: “Al Imaam Al-Barbahaari had some statements of extreme takfeer in his book Sharhus Sunnah, so I do not allow anyone to teach it here (damaaj) except ash-Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree, due to these statements of extreme takfeer” End of quote. Also al-Imaam Hamad bin A'teeq, may Allah have mercy upon him, who is from the great scholars of Najd, has made a tahtheeb, meaning an abridged and rectified version to the book Sharhus Sunnah,whereas he erased the likes of those statements and this version has been published and is present with us. Abu Khadeejah stated: “Yahyah al-Hajooree falsely claimed that the Sahaabah who fought at Badr sinned twice! This was in his false tafseer of an Aayah in Soorah Aali 'Imraan. “
Ash-Shaykh Yahya used the word "disobeyed" as found in the verse 152 of Soorah Aali 'Imraan, where Allah, The Most High said:
OP + C ' W C !J"c 1A $ G K C !J 1s,H gK &l5 DJ # C 9l B C + C !. 9`*] @ C l5 •O 1A nO % C A C W†& C C @A C !J0 C C C )& !? C E C OT h`Q]@ ,W !=&m[ ,W Which the translation is: "And Allah did indeed fulfil His Promise to you when you were killing them (your enemy) with His Permission; until (the moment) you lost your courage and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed after He showed you (of the booty) which you love..." Whereas Ash-Shaykh Yahya uttered the word (the battle) of Badr which was a slip of the tongue ,as Shaykh Yahya himself stated in a previous tape that he intended the word (the battle) of Uhud, as this was clarified prior to the attacks of Spubs. If Spubs are building their attacks upon statements based of the slip of tongue then let them attack their Shaykh Ubayd al-Jabiree where he said: “...This has many examples, as the likes of the captives of (the battle) badr, for verily Allah azza wajal consulted the companions, he consulted Abu Bakr and Umar...” As you notice Ubayd al-Jabiree uttered that “Allah azza wajal consulted the companions” which is an erroneous statement, however what is understood that it was a slip of the tongue whereas Ubayd al-Jabiree intended the Messenger of Allah, so are Spubs going to attack their Shaykh Ubayd al-Jabiree upon this slip of the tongue??? As for the matter if "IS IT APPROPRIATE TO SAY THE FOLLOWING PHRASE: THE COMPANIONS DISOBEYED ALLAH IN THE BATTLE OF UHUD?"then this was clarified in the following audio by Ash-Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree (Translated to English): Abu Khadeejah stated: He claimed Qaabeel the son of Aadam was a kaafir apostate! This is another deception from Abu Khadeejah, which has already been clarified that Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree is merely saying similar to what some of the scholars have said: Al-Maawardee, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “There is a difference of opinion if (i.e. Qaabeel the son of Aadam) was a disbeliever when he killed his brother or he was merely a wrong doer, some have said he was a disbeliever and others have said rather he was an evil man, wrong doer.” Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:
(
2 Ža $n2 S# {&$K,= '?R !% B9[). k%l OP+ $8= ,( 95A
“...That he (i.e. Qaabeel the son of Aadam) was not a disbeliever when he made a sacrifice however he disbelieved (i.e. apostated) afterwards...”
Such quotes have been clarified prior to the attacks of Spubs, as found on this thread: http:// aloloom.net/vb/showthread.php?t=17533 This matter with no doubt is a matter of a difference of opinion between some of the past scholars, whereas if Shaykh Yahya or others from the modern scholars were to select an opinion (in search of the truth) from these opinions then he should not be called a hadaadee for that!!!
