[Part 5] Series of Responses to Abu Usaamah’s Habitual Deceitfulness
Deceitfully Refraining from Explaining and Stating the Scholarly Restrictions Regarding the Principle: “Whoever does not make Tabdee of Mubtadi is a Mubtadi”
In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy
In his deceptive reply to the Friday incident at Al-Markazus Salafi, the man of bidah mentioned a principle by way of which he sought to establish yet again a trick utilised by ahlul bidah- narrating only what benefits him -(and this time he referred to a principle and refrained from explaining it, whilst passing a verdict against us); whereas the Salafiyyoon narrate what is for them and against. Indeed, it is well known that Abu Usaamah and his allies amongst the Mu’mayyi’ah are famous for utilising general statements, especially regarding some affairs that have been detailed, explained and clarified by the scholars in order to show the falsehood of the Haddaadiyyah and Mu’mayyi’ah, and the sound stance of Ahlus Sunnah.
Abu Usaama stated that we declared him a Mubtadi simply because he does not declare Al-Maribi a Mubtadi, and this, according to Abu Usaamah, is a bidah we are upon – because we declared him a Mubtadi solely due to the fact that he does not declare al-Maribi a Mubtadi.
Firstly: We do not know a single Salafi who preceded any Salafi scholar in declaring Abu Usaama a man of bidah; rather his affair was made known to Shaikh Ahmad An-Najmi (rahimahullaah).
Secondly: Once again, as it is well known of him, he deliberately sought to conceal the knowledge base clarification regarding this affair in order to deceitfully slander Salafiyyoon, just as he attempted to conceal, lie and distort whilst seeking to slander Shaikh Rabee and Ustaadh Abu Khadeejah in the past.
Thirdly: Indeed, what Abu Usaama sought to conceal from his unsuspecting followers will be revealed as follows In-Shaa-Allaah. Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi (may Allaah preserve him) was asked:
Question: The principle: ‘whoever does not declare an innovator as an innovation, he (himself) is an innovator; some people say that this principle is strange (or alien to Salafiyyah);
The Shaikh answered: It is not correct to apply this principle unrestrictedly because it maybe that this (person) does not know (that) person for the bidah he commits, so he does not declare him an innovator due to Wara (apprehensive fear(1); so why should you declare him an innovator? ( i.e this person who refrains from making tabdee of a mubtadi because he neither knows his innovation or refrains from making Tabdee of him out of wara); but if he knows the innovator (i.e. knows that he is upon bidah), loves him and allies with him, then he is a mubtadi. This is the differentiation in this affair – he knows that this person is an innovator but he aids him and wages war against Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, then this person is a mubtadi without a doubt. As for a person who does not know that such and such person is a mubtadi, he is not to be declared an innovator- this principle is not applied to him. (As for) you (i.e. the scholar), the one that studied his affair and you know that he allies with a mubtadi, puts him in a favourable position, wages war against Ahlus Sunnah for the sake of this mubtadi and for the sake of this falsehood, this person is a mubtadi, astray. As for the person who does not know that indeed such and such person is a mubtadi, then advise him and clarify for him (i.e. with clear unambiguous proofs until he understands) that such person is a mubtadi. So unless he ceases (i.e. from defending this mubtadi after understanding that to be the case) then put him with his companion – the mubtadi. [See Awnul Baari 2/891..slightly paraphrased]
Finally: This is what Abu Usama sought to conceal in order to deceive his listeners that he was declared a man of Bidah merely based on the fact that he refuses to make Tabdee of Al-Maribi. So his unsuspecting listeners should be made aware of the fact that he deliberately refrained from explaining this principle as well as the fact that we did not precede Shaikh Ahmad (rahimahullaah), nor do we intend to precede the scholars (In-Shaa-Allaah) in declaring him or anyone else a man of bidah and misguidance. However, manipulation, concealment, lies and deception became Abu Usaama’s second skin since when he started defending Mubtadi’ah and cannot argue with the Salafiyyoon based on any evidence; rather deception is what appeals to him but not the truth.
lWe ask Allaah for Ikhlaas, Thabaat and Husnul Khaatimah. Aameen
To be continued…In-Shaa-Allaah
(1) Wara (apprehensive fear). The translation of this term was taken from one of Ustaadh Amjad Rafiq’s (may Allaah preserve him) translations.