Rebuttal of Harari the Heretic's Minion

the book of shaykh ibn al-nu'man he cites sets fire to wahabi camps and which will make the stray dogs that run from wahabi camps to sunni camps claiming to belong to both, لا إلى هؤلاء ولا إلى هؤلاء and keep barking all the time whether it makes sense or not, to flee with their tails between their legs.

what a pitiful and zaleel existence some people have - who expend all their efforts to diminish the stature of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

====

here are the books:

hujjatu'llahi ala al-aalamin / nab'hani:

https://archive.org/download/7ojatoLlah/7ojato-llah.pdf

misbah al-zalam / ibn nu'man marakashi (d. 683 AH) [among his teachers are imam ibn abd al-salam]

https://archive.org/download/Misbah.A-dhalam/kitab.pdf

 

i want to go through his post line by line, but i am tied up with some things right now.

brothers forwarded me posts of zameel and AK (new ones) and since i am not able to respond immediately, i will leave a few books here for reference. as for zameel's dishonesty, we will visit him soon - in sha'Allah.

AK's latest post is refuted word to word by imam yusuf nab'hani in his shawahid al-haq, p213-214. he refuted ibn abdu'l hadi and his mindless attack on imam al-subki.






citing busiri:

if minds go astray in spite of knowledge
how can a (wise man) counsel them?

 

for a very quick tafsir of al-kawthar, check this out: {PDF attached}

 

i stumbled on this article after writing my post. sharing as it is relevant

https://tinyurl.com/y7hts3oo

---
he asks the same question - were all the scholars in the past 700 years unable to discover supposed shirk in those lines?

 

i wanted to include a snippet from tafsir ibn kathir, about s3v26. but the forum has a limit on images. anyway, it is a side note so here it is:

 

there is another interesting corollary of the aayat from surah aal imran.



====
Say: O my Allah! You are the Owner of the Kingdom, you give kingdom to whomsoever You please.

the explicit meanings of this verse are:

1. Allah ta'ala is the Owner of EVERYTHING.

2. Allah ta'ala can give from HIS kingdom (which is everything) to whomsoever He pleases.

and the third which is implicit, and clearly understood. no one can object on the following:

3. He can give whatever He Pleases in His Dominion/mulk.​

there are many other meanings as explained by mufassirin, but the above is undisputed by anyone who claims to be a Muslim.

====
it is essential to get a clarification from the naysayers: do you agree with the 3rd meaning or not?

if you say: "NO" (al-iyadhu billah), you need to explain:

1. why not?

2. what is it in His Dominion that Allah ta'ala cannot give?​

i don't think anyone - even the most simple-minded, illiterate among muslims will say "NO". so there is no point in flogging this point. if at all someone does, we will tackle it based on their answers to the above two.
------

if you say: "YES" to all the three above: that "ALlah ta'ala can give whomever, whatever He Wills", then we ask:

1. what are the things that make one a mushrik if someone claims that it is given by Allah. go ahead, think of something. tell me about it.​

assuming you say: "no. there is nothing that Allah ta'ala cannot give. and if someone claims that it is given by Allah ta'ala, there is no comparison or equality. and hence it is not shirk". in the sahih hadith is the wording of dua:

اللَّهُمَّ لا مَانِعَ لِما أعْطَيْتَ، ولَا مُعْطِيَ لِما مَنَعْتَ

O Allah, no one can stop [something] that you Give and no one can give which you have prevented [from being given]


so we ask:

2. what prevents Allah ta'ala from giving anyone, any thing; or someone the treasures of the heavens and the earth and dispensation in the world?​

i expect a muslim to say: "there is nothing that prevents Allah ta'ala from giving anyone any thing." there may be some who delude themselves to be super smart and say: "i don't agree with the second clause" in which case, they should explain why. we have seen in our previous post that 'giving' and 'ownership' between creatures is not the same as Giving of Allah and Ownership of Allah.

in which case,

3. if Allah ta'ala can give anyone anything, why is it shirk/polytheism to believe that Allah ta'ala gave the power of dispensation in His entire Kingdom to His beloved SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam?

4. is there a limit to the kingdom that Allah ta'ala can give?​

REMEMBER the key points:

1. Given by Allah, does not go out of His mulk. Allah ta'ala remains the absolute owner and 'giving' 'ownership' is only relative to creatures.

2. Allah can give anything to anyone.​

=====
now let us read some more qur'an:

or do they envy the people for that which Allah has given them by His Grace? Indeed, we have given the progeny of Ibrahim, the book and wisdom; and we gave them a GREAT KINGDOM.​

here we see that Allah ta'ala has said that He 'gave' to some among the descendants of hazrat ibrahim alayhi's salam, the book and wisdom (meaning revealed book and wisdom=prophethood). the explicit meaning of this verse is that the jews are rebuked by ALlah for envying RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam for being granted nubuwwah, and he was an arab.

most tafasir agree that the first portion refers to the favour on RasulAllah alayhi's salatu was salam. and the next about the prophets in banu israyil, some who received the Book and some others given a "GREAT KINGDOM"

in other words, Allah ta'ala can give anyone anything.

"Allah has given them by His Grace" - given by the faDl of Allah ta'ala. as we have said, this refers to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. as he has said in other verse:




indeed, His favour upon you is immense.

---
we sunnis say that Allah's favour is IMMENSE. the wahabi/habashi/devbandi minds are petty. they cannot imagine how immense is immense, especially when Allah ta'ala HIMSELF has said that His fadl is great.

also those who were given the kingdom, such as hazrat sulayman alayh's salam, did they have ANY taSarruf in the kingdom? and if yes, how much? let us consult the qur'an:

and [sulayman alayhi's salam] said: o my Lord-Sustainer; forgive me and bestow upon me a kingdom, such shall not belong to anyone after me...​

here sulayman alayhis salam ASKED for a kingdom and such a big kingdom that no one else was given after him.
is this shirk? al-iyadhu billah.

and then Allah ta'ala gave him a vast kingdom. this was not merely humans, but jinns as well. and the wind and the animal kingdom.
is this shirk? al-iyadhu billah.

and made the wind subservient to him, that it would blow gently wherever he wished.​

and the devils - every builder and diver. and others who were shackled in chains.​

may i remind you that Allah ta'ala who can give anything to anyone, gave His chosen Prophet, hazrat sulayman alayhis salam, a kingdom that was vast and his rule extended not only for a few cities or an area on earth but the entire world, including animals and jinn and even the winds!

but wait. so what could hazrat sulayman alayhis salam do with his kingdom? what kind of dispensation? taSarruf, if you like?

this is our Grant; bestow or withhold, without being asked for account.​

alahazrat's translation:



i hope the fever of "shirk-shirk" has come down. this is what the morons call shirk. Allah ta'ala has given His Prophet a kingdom and given him authority to grant or withhold as he likes - and he will not be asked for account.

sub'HanAllah!

and look at what ibn kathir says in its tafsir:

it means: this is what We have granted you, complete kingdom and perfect authority as you have asked us. so you can give whom you please and withhold from whom you please. you won't be asked to give us an account. whatever you do, it is permissible for you. ​

----
is this shirk? does the qur'an teach you shirk? and if Allah can give such a kingdom and authority to one of His Prophets, then why can't He give more than that to His most beloved Prophet? how can the first case be iman itself (as revealed in the qur'an) and the second case shirk?

shame on those who call themselves muslims and claim that ikhtiyar was given to our prophet to dispense in creation is 'shirk'. they should weep at their impoverished iman and rue their hearts without illumination which have turned into brittle stones or burnt coal.

is our prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam not greater than hazrat sulayman alayhis salam?

in fact, in the Hadith of saHiHayn, RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was given the choice to be "King Prophet" but he sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam chose to be "the most perfect slave of Allah, and a prophet" [`abdan Rasula]. of course, here RasulALlah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam did not choose to be a 'king' in this world. but that does not mean he was not given the authority to dispense.

----
those sick minds which cannot comprehend the Greatness of Allah ta'ala or His Power to grant it to whomsoever He pleases, must know what Allah ta'ala gave the prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam.

among the many wisdoms of the qur'an, one thing that occurred to me is that the greatness of what was granted to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam; as if the qur'an rebukes the naysayers: are you so incompetent and so ignorant that you do not even know the meaning one verse of the shortest surah in the qur'an?



and one of the meanings of this verse can be found in the couplet:

فَإِنَّ مِنْ جُودِكَ الدُّنْيَا وَضَرَّتَهَا
وَمِنْ عُلُومِكَ عِلْمُ اللَّوْحِ وَالقَلَمِ

والله أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

 

we will do the analysis of ibn hajar's statement and his citation from qarafiy.

in sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqihi.

 

shameless tampering of the statements of qarafiy and haytami that he mentioned.

this fellow quoted qarafiy thus: [which is cited from iylam of haytami anyway]

قال القرافي المالكي في الفروق في كلامه على النهي عن طلب الداعي من الله تعالى ثبوت ما دل القاطع العقلي على نفيه مما يخل ثبوته بجلال الربوبية قال مثل:" أن تعظم حماقة الداعي وتجرؤه فيسأل الله تعالى أن يفوض إليه من أمور العالم ما هو مختص بالقدرة والإرادة الربانية من الإيجاد والإعدام والقضاء النافذ المحتم، وقد دل القاطع العقلي على استحالة ثبوت ذلك لغير الله تعالى فيكون طلب ذلك طلبا للشركة مع الله تعالى في الملك وهو كفر، وقد وقع ذلك لجماعة من جهال الصوفية فيقولون فلان أعطي كلمة كن ويسألون أن يعطوا كلمة كن التي في قوله تعالى {إنما قولنا لشيء إذا أردناه أن نقول له كن فيكون} [النحل: 40] وما يعلمون معنى هذه الكلمة في كلام الله تعالى ولا يعلمون ما معنى إعطائها إن صح أنها أعطيت، وهذه أغوار بعيدة الروم على العلماء المحصلين فضلا عن الصوفية المتخرصين فيهلكون من حيث لا يشعرون ويعتقدون أنهم إلى الله تعالى متقربون وهم عنه متباعدون عصمنا الله .تعالى من الفتن وأسبابها والجهالات وشبهها​

and in english thus:

Al-Qurafiyy the Malikiyy, in ‘Al-Furuq’ - in his talk about the prohibition of the supplicant seeking from Allah what the definitive mental evidence proves is negated; that which if it were confirmed would be contrary to the Greatness of God's Lordship – said something like: For a supplicant’s stupidity and insolence to reach the point of asking Allah to grant him divine power and will of creating or annihilating or (to grant him) authoritative, fulfilled management, the definitive mental evidence has proven the impossibility of that for other than Allah the Exalted. Therefore, seeking such a thing would be a request to share with Allah the Exalted in Dominion and Ownership, and that is blasphemy.

That was done by a group of ignorant Sufis; they were saying “So-and-so was given (the word) ‘kun’!” They also ask to be given that word “kun” which is in the Saying of the Exalted:

{إنما قولنا لشيء إذا أردناه أن نقول له كن فيكون} [النحل: 40]

<Merely, Our (Allah’s) Saying to something if We willed for it to exist is that We say to it: “Kun (Be),” and it shall be.>

And they do not know the meaning of this word in the Speech of Allah the Exalted, nor do they realize the (invalid) implication of it being given away if it were valid to be given away!

This kind of status is not reachable by the true scholars who acquired the knowledge, let alone being from the fake Sufis, then they perish by some unsuspected way, while believing that they are, to Allah, indeed accepted, and the fact is that they are the furthest from acceptance, may Allah protect us from the trials and their causes, and from all of the ignorant things and what is like them.
End of Al-Qarafi’s statement.​

this is the page on the printed book:




======================
and cited ibn Hajar al-haytami separately thus:

in arabic:

وقال ابن حجر الهيثمي في «الإعلام بقواطع الإسلام» (ص218): (ومما يكون من الدعاء كفراً أيضاً أن يطلب الداعي نفي ما د َّل العقل القطعي على ثبوته مما يخل بإجلال .الربوبية... أو أن يجعل التصرف في العالم بما أراد

[ellipsis highlighted in red deliberately; just a casual thing. there is only about one page between the two statements]
​

in english:

Also, Ibn Hajar Al-Haytamiyy said in ‘Al-I^lam Bi-Qawati^il-Islam (p.218): “And also among what would be blasphemy in supplication is for the supplicant to seek the negation of what the definitive intellect proves is confirmed among what denies the Greatness of Godhood …. or that control of the world be given to him as he wants.”​

here is the excerpt from the printed book: (the two red boxes are quoted with the ellipsis in between).





spot the differences from what harari's follower quoted and what is IN the book.

 

but, of course! there is nothing wrong with this. and i have shown that imam ibn Hajar said the same words in his books as the standard aqidah of sunni imams.

how so? where did shaykh salek or any sunni say that it is not a form of "tawassul" or istighathah? look at the self-contradiction; first he said 'given' 'given' now he makes a false accusation [iftiraa] that shaykh salek did not mean 'tawassul'.

what exactly is tawassul anyway?

exactly. this is another reason AK's confused and befuddled babble does not make sense.

it is like saying: we believe that sun exists and its rays reach the earth. however it is invalid to believe that the rays CAN cover the entire earth.

this is the product of hawa of AK. hawa=vain desire; hawa=air. he pulls it out of thin air.

قل هاتوا برهانكم إن كنتم صادقين

i have been calling AK an idiot. because of nuggets such as this and his incapability to understand a simple sentence; either because of jahl and below average intelligence - or because of stubborn refusal [inaad].

he acknowledges that the messenger owns the creation by Allah giving it to him. it is clear that sunnis say that the Messenger owns and gives by the permission of Allah. why cannot Allah give it to His Messenger? is there a naSS that negates it or did AK or his heretic harari receive waHy? on what basis do you reject that it is not possible? and even if you do, how can this be kufr and shirk?

who is imposing limits on Allah ta'ala now? (ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabeera).

according to AK:

1) Allah did not give His Messenger sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam the kingdom of heavens and earth. how and why?

2) how do you know that He didn't? where is any explicit naSS to that effect? besides who is playing fast and loose with ta'wil? where we quote explicit nuSuS and the ulama of bayan agree that in context the statement should be taken prima facie. there you run for ta'wil. [wait for the nuSuS, they will come in sha'Allah]. and the verses you quoted below to disprove tamlik, are all explained in context - but you reject that ta'wil like a typical harari minion.

3) if you insist He cannot give, the question is why? which part of sunni aqidah does it contradict?

when this message was shared by a brother on whatsapp, i literally laughed out loud, because of the man's inability to think. in fact, this assertion of khateeb, itself proves that his fundamental aqidah about Allah ta'ala is unclear. he needs to sit with a proper shaykh like shaykh salek and learn the basics.

----
انعطاف

i said: abdullah khateeb has no clue of basic aqidah about Allah ta'ala. what is the proof?

1. let us say, king-A gives his kingdom to his son-B. then king-A becomes practically powerless. son-B can now take decisions independent of king-A. in other words, son-B has become more powerful than king-A. so son-B can accept or reject or repeal decisions of king-A independently. in fact, if he wants son-B can arrest king-A and do away with him. or if he is a dutiful son, he can be nice and polite in public, but does not obey or accept his father's decisions. but will go along willy-nilly. and so on.

2. khateeb and the habashis and the devbandis probably think that the Kingdom of Allah ta'ala is like that of humans above. ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabeera.

3. sub'HanAllah. when humans GIVE to another - it passes on from A's possession to B's. and A has no control. the least is there is some sort of shared-control.

4. sub'Han Allahi `amma yaSifun! when Allah ta'ala GIVES - it does not go out of His mulk. when He has given you a free will it doesn't mean that He has no say in the matter or cannot exercise His power!

you have a free will does not mean you have an ABSOLUTELY free will. everything is governed by the Will and Power of Allah and nothing goes out of it.

5. everything in the heavens and the earth belong to Allah ta'ala; He is the Absolute Sovereign.



6. so if Allah gives something from His mulk - it does not mean it is 'removed' from His mulk and passed into the possession of another. only fools like the poor ahbash can think in such terms because they don't understand tawHid.

hazrat yusuf alayhi's salam said:



'You have given me a kingdom'

now did this kingdom pass into the possession of hazrat yusuf and removed from the dominion of Allah ta'ala? ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabeera.

do the aHbash/khateeb deny that Allah ta'ala can 'grant' or 'give' kingdom? if not, then how can this be shirk? Allah has Himself said:



say: O Allah! You are the Absolute Sovereign of the Universe. You give 'kingdom' to whom You please.

this verse says:

1. Allah ta'ala is the absolute sovereign.

2. He can 'give' from His kingdom to whomever whatever He pleases.

3. this giving is not the same as creatures giving among one another.

4. note that the same word 'mulk' is used in the ayah, but each has different connotation and context. when we talk about 'Mulk' of Allah, we say that it is: absolute, His own creation, no one gave it to Him, He has absolute control and Power over it, and no one has partnership or claim in His ABSOLUTE kingdom.

5. when we say, He gives kingdom to others, we mean:

a) the kingdom is GIVEN by Allah.
b) whatever control an individual has is in this received kingdom, it cannot supersede or go out of the ABSOLUTE control of Allah ta'ala.
c) those given the kingdom can do taSarruf in the kingdom given to them.​

what is so unbelievable in this? the only point of contention that remains is the extent of the kingdom. we, ahlu's sunnah say that it is the heavens and the earth and the entire creation. those who disagree must explain why not, and the following points arise:

a) Allah ta'ala cannot give anything to anyone except in a limited manner. (ma'adh Allah)

b) Allah does not have the power to give the entire creation to someone. (ma'adh Allah)

c) If Allah gives the entire creation to someone, what remains of His possession? (al-iyadhu billah, astaghfirullah)

d) If Allah can give the entire creation to someone, it becomes joint-ownership or joint-possession (ma'adh Allah).

e) there is no naSS to prove the claim.​

except the fifth, the aHbash idiocy implies the top four. and if it is indeed the fifth point, there is no issue of kufr or shirk; it is only a matter of not accepting because of absence of proof (which is jahl, as proof EXISTS, but let us not dwell on that now).

the aHbash taSawwur of ilaah and mulk is that if ALlah ta'ala gives His Messenger, SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, somehow it is removed from ALlah's possession and passes on to nabiy's possession (al-iyadhu billah) and thus makes him 'sharik' or 'partner' or 'equal' or other such meanings. ta'ala ALlahu `uluwwan kabeera.

abdullah khateeb should do tawbah and renew his faith for holding such silly beliefs.

---
else, why posit the aayat of "mulk al-samawati wa'l arD" as proof for your accusation of shirk?

this is what he quoted in arabic (giving him the benefit of doubt that he probably doesn't do a good english translation):

وقال ابن حجر الهيثمي في «الإعلام بقواطع الإسلام» (ص218): (ومما يكون من الدعاء كفراً أيضاً أن يطلب الداعي نفي ما د َّل العقل القطعي على ثبوته مما يخل بإجلال .الربوبية... أو أن يجعل التصرف في العالم بما أراد)​

we will presently see haytami's al-iylam, in sha'Allah. but at the outset these are implications of the poor man AK:

1. anyone who says what shaykh salek said above has committed blasphemy.

2. and the same ibn Hajar al-haytami (author of al-iylam) said the same thing in his different books including a hadith commentary. so he has committed blasphemy. if not, why not?

3. how is "GIVING" the mulk negation of Greatness of Godhood?

khateeb should first learn to read properly. we will look at the actual quote later.







=================
i don't want to be petty and say that he doesn't know his haythami from haytami (ث from ت); it could be a slip and we all make such slips. but for the clarification of students who may not know there are three ibn Hajars and it can be confusing. many mix them up. i found a book attributed to ibn Hajar al-haytami and the editor mixed up two ibn Hajars in that biography and it was amusing to see books of both listed as works of the same person. tuhfatu'l muHtaj and fat'h al-bari and the author listed as al-haytami al-asqalani.


1. Nuruddin Abu'l Hasan Ali ibn Abu Bakr ibn Sulayman ibn Hajar al-Haythami al-Shafiyi al-Qahiri (with ث) (d.807 AH)

2. Shihabuddin Abu'l Fadl Ahmad ibn ALi ibn Muhammad ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, al-MiSri al-Shafiyi (773-852 AH)

3. Shihabuddin Abu'l Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hajar al-Haytami al-Shafiyi al-Makki (with taa ت) 899-974 AH.


so also qarafiy. qarafa is a well known area/cemetry in cairo. the reason for this apellation is that his name had to be registered in the madrasah and the registrar did not know his name. the imam appeared and entered from the qarafa side, hence he wrote his name as qarafi.

Shihabuddin Abu'l Abbas Ahmad ibn Abu'l Alaa Idris ibn Abdul Rahman al-Sinhaji al-Bahnasi al-Misri al-Qarafi [626-684 AH]

 

it does not matter if they expressly said it. it is important to present proof that they REJECTED it.

when AK claimed this, shaykh salek responded by talking to one of sh.murabit's students in the other video. sh. salek asked him questions objectively and asked then posed the questions in other ways to remove all ambiguity.

the result? shaykh murabit's student agreed with shaykh salek. and the salat mashish snip that he mentioned will be seen shortly. in sha'ALlah.

instead of eating his words and keeping quiet AK replied with more lies and slanders.

how so?

i have quoted ibn Hajar al-haytami and some of the prominent ulama/authors/researchers in the past 600 years. for a frog in a small puddle, there is nothing outside the puddle nor anything greater than it.

in other words abdullah khateeb says that ibn hajar has repeatedly said in his fiqh and hadith commentaries things that are "deemed ugly by even the lowest Muslim"

digest that.

given AK's method seen in the two posts, with his pathetic comprehension it is difficult to believe what he says and what he must have said to the shaykh (if it indeed transpired). so, for the above statement to carry some weight, he should post in text or in audio or video, the name of the shaykh and what was the exact question, and what was his exact answer.

we know habashis are notorious for tampering books of elders, and i won't be surprised if

summary: show evidence for your above claim. your own opinion carries no weight as you have demonstrated that you are unreliable in quoting and also have a weak comprehension.

 

harari's book reminds me of some people who write their reports by cobbling up stuff from here and there and trying to give an impression of erudition. that is certainly my opinion, however, anyone who has READ books by the imams i mentioned below can clearly see the level. each of the imams below has written commentaries on books that are critically acclaimed and in some cases, the best books among similar works.

imam bajuri/bayjuri is an acknowledged imam in kalam and ma'qulat; an expert in lingustic sciences - and these are not mere claims of an admirer. his books are evidence of his erudition and firm foothold in aqidah. in my own experience, his books are very beneficial for students like us. especially his sharh of burdah and tuhfatu'l murid sh. jawharah.

here is bajuri whose books are accepted by the scholars of the ummah. but now we are supposed to believe that imam bayjuri doesn't know about shirk and tawHid and this abdullah khateeb fellow with few facebook posts to his name and his heretic sheikh with patchy books know better than him!


books of shaykh ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-bajuri.

1. Hashiyah ala risalah muHammad al-fudali

2. tuHfatu'l maqam ala kifayatu'l awam fima yajibu alayhim min ilm al-kalam

3. fat'h al-qarib al-majid sh. bidayatu'l murid

4. tuHfatu'l bashar ala mawlid ibn Hajar

5. Hashiyah ala mukhtaSar al-sanusi fi fann al-mizan

6. Hashiyah ala matn al-sullam al-munawraq li'l akhDari

7. Hashiyah ala matn al-samarqandiyyah fi i'lm al-bayan

8. fat'H al-Khabir al-Latif sharH naZm al-tarSif fi fann al-taSrif

9. Hashiyah ala al-sanusiyah al-sughra fi'l aqidah

10. Hashiyah ala mawlid abi'l barakat aHmad al-dardir

11. fat'H rabb al-bariyyah ala al-Durratu'l bahiyyah naZm aajurrumiyyah

12. Hashiyah ala burdatu'l madiH li'l imam al-busiri

13. Hashiyah ala al-qaSidah al-iytidhariyyah al-shahirah

14. tuHfatu'l murid ala al-jawharati't tawHid (li'l laqani)

15. minaH al-fattaH ala Daw al-miSbaH fi aHkami'n nikaH

16. al-tuHfatu'l khayriyyah ala'l fawa'id al-shinshawriyah sh. al-manzumiyyah al-raHbiyyah fi'l fara'id

17. al-durar al-Hisan ala fat'H al-RaHman

18. al-mawahib al-ladunniyyah ala shamayil al-Muhammadiyyah (Hashiyah ala al-shamayil lil-tirmdhi)

19. risalah saghirah fi'l tawHid

20. Hashiyah ala sharh ibn qasim al-ghazzi

21. Hashiyah bajuri ala matn abi'sh shuja'a (4 vols)

22. Hashiyah bajuri ala mawlid dardir

23. Hashiyah bajuri ala muqaddimah fi fann al-manTiq of sanusi

24. is'aad - sharH banat su'aad


===========

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

abdullah khateeb attacked shaykh salek for no reason except that the paucity of his mind and knowledge could not comprehend the vastness of the ilm granted to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and the faDl of Allah upon His beloved. SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

while his screed is not worthy of a refutation, an absence of a reply will embolden him to make more foolish accusations. in sha'Allah we will try to put him in his place. wa billahi't tawfiq.

al-madad ya RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

=============

assuming that this abdullah khateeb fellow (AK) is talking about the issue of taSarruf and ilm al-ghayb, it appears that neither his family nor he himself have any passing acquaintance with islamic literature. except perhaps the doctored and distorted ravings of habashi madmen. hence, it is natural that he is so agitated.

الإنسان عدو لما يجهل
people are enemies of that which they do not know

he is a man of ordinary learning and if you think i say this only because of my bias, you should read his books and read others on a similar matter. for example other shuruh of tahawiyyah and nasafiyyah. his books are lifeless; other than just vent his spleen for his pet peeves, there is nothing much for a seeker of knowledge. and those who grow up feeding on poison ivy, with end up with an incurable itch.

his shaykh abdullah harari published a book named: abridged burdah and removed the lines that did not appear 'proper' to his impoverished mind. even though he calls it a sharh of burdah, it is anything but. check for yourselves.

https://archive.org/details/KwakbDria

he drones on how one should not follow someone in a mistake even that person is an imam etc. and following shariah is of prime importance. of course, we know that and we do not disagree with that.

كلمة حق يراد بها الباطل

but the real reason harari talks about it is to imply that there are mistakes in burdah and you should drop them. so harari thinks he knows better than all the imams who wrote commentaries on burdah! and you can easily see the depth and breadth of the scholars who wrote commentaries on burdah, their scholarly output and shallow pamphlets masquerading as books by this harari heretic.

once again, if AK has any sense, he should see whether harari can even compare to the dust beneath the feet of this giants.

take a look on the profiles of those ulama who wrote commentaries on burdah and especially the lines abdullah harari quasi-wahabi deems against shariah:

1. ibn Hajar al-haytami

2. mulla ali al-qari

3. ibrahim al-bajuri

4. kharputi and a supercommentary by shaykh zadah

5. shaykh khalid al-az'hari

6. dussuqi

7. sh. zakariyya al-ansari

===========================

riddle:
what is the difference between this harari fellow and the wahabis?
the wahabis do not revile sayyiduna mu'awiyah.

---

the fundamental belief is that nobody can give independently except Allah. and all others give by the permission of Allah ta'ala.

when understands this basic concept - which is clear for the most illiterate muslim, there is no possibility of mistaking it as "independent of ALlah" or "even when Allah does not Will". Hasha lillah.

 

This is a translation of Abdullah al-Khatib [عبدالله الخطيب] latest post:

بسم الله والحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله
وبعد،

I have explained in the previous post the reality of the deviant belief that Salik has explicitly mentioned and I have (along with other students of knowledge) responded with a scholarly response with proofs from Al-Quran, Hadith, statements from scholars who have addressed this kind of belief such as Al-Qarafiy and AL-Haytami.

And there was nothing from Salik afterwards, instead of reverting back to the truth or providing a scholarly response, except that he exposed his desperation by manipulating the matter in an attempt to trick muslims.
Let me expose his creed:

Salik claims that the Prophet peace be upon him owns the universe and owns the hereafter, and that the universe is under his control (in his Qabdah), he gives from it whatever he wishes and forbids whatever he wishes to whomever he wishes.

So you as a Muslim, according to this deviant belief, can ask the Prophet peace be upon him directly to grant you a child and that the Prophet can fulfill that for you directly because the whole universe is his, so he can give you that child directly!

Just like if you ask your friend to give you his shirt and your friend can fulfill that for you because he owns the shirt as the owner of the thing can do whatever he wishes with it. As a matter of fact, Salik explicitly mentioned that you can ask the Prophet to give you the entire universe because it’s his and there is nothing wrong with that.

This is what he explicitly mentioned and we seek refuge with Allah from that.

So dear Muslims and readers, do not allow anyone to insult your intelligence and allow him to manipulate the matter and distort the reality, this deviant belief, if any muslim heard it, he will be disgusted from it and repelled from it because the deviance is apparent. Even the translator who was doing the translation in the lecture was so frightened and his face turned yellow when he was translating this and this was apparent as well.

Who among the reliable scholars ever said these ugly statements and where did he bring it from ? Is it mentioned in Al-Quran? Is it mentioned in al-Hadith ? Is it mentioned by the scholars of creed? Then where did Salik bring it from? Was the righteous Salaf and the scholars of Aqidah unaware of this creed and the authors of “mutun” until he came up with it? Where is Salik from providing a scholarly response to prove this deviant belief and where is he from establishing the matters according to the methodology of Ahlusunnah? Is this how scholars deal with matters by running away from responding and instead using tricks and deceptions?

The answer is that he came up with this creed from his personal desires, from his own understanding from some poetries such as Al-Burdah, the author of Al-Burdah said فمن جودك الدنيا وضرتها which means that among your generosity O Prophet of Allah is the guidance in this world and the intercession in the hereafter, and Salik claimed that this means that the Prophet owns the entire universe and has tassuruf in all creations and owns the hereafter...

I ask you by Allah, is this considered a proof ? Al Salik mentioned in one my private lessons with him (which I have a recording of that I will be attaching to this post), that among the defects according to scholars is taking matters from outside of their sources, such as taking Fiqih from Sirah book or history books, and taking arabic grammar (Nahw) from Fiqih books for instance.

Shouldn’t he apply this to himself ? Taking creed from poetry and madih which is known to have lots of exaggerations and metaphorical expressions ?? Other than the fact that he had his own understanding of it? What a very weak way of conducting a proof contradicting himself, that makes a mother who lost her child laugh!

We have mentioned the statement of the scholars who spoke about this belief specifically. What is Salik’s response to it? Ibin Hajar Al-Haytamiyy said in ‘Al-I^lam Bi-Qawati^il-Islam (p.218): “And also among what would be blasphemy in supplication is for the supplicant to seek the something of what the definitive intellect denies in which it is against the Greatness of Godhood such as asking Allah that (Tassarruf) control of the world be given to him as he wants.”

So ibin Hajar saying that whomever believes that someone else other than Allah has tassarruf in the world with whatever he wishes, then he believed in something that is against the greatness of Allah, which is kufur. So what does Salik say about this ? This is an explicit statement that exactly addresses this deviant belief .
What is Salik’s response to what Al-Qarafi has mentioned which was narrated by Al-Haytami right after he mentioned his previous statement ?

Al-Qurafiyy the Malikiyy, in ‘Al-Furuq’ - in his talk about the prohibition of the supplicant seeking from Allah what the definitive mental evidence proves is negated; that which if it were confirmed would be contrary to the Greatness of God's Lordship – said something like: For a supplicant’s stupidity and insolence to reach the point of asking Allah to grant him divine power and will of creating or annihilating or (to grant him) authoritative, fulfilled management, the definitive mental evidence has proven the impossibility of that for other than Allah the Exalted. Therefore, seeking such a thing would be a request to share with Allah the Exalted in Dominion and Ownership, and that is blasphemy.

That was done by a group of ignorant Sufis; they were saying “So-and-so was given (the word) ‘kun’!” They also ask to be given that word “kun” which is in the Saying of the Exalted:

{إنما قولنا لشيء إذا أردناه أن نقول له كن فيكون} [النحل: 40]

<Merely, Our (Allah’s) Saying to something if We willed for it to exist is that We say to it: “Kun (Be),” and it shall be.>

And they do not know the meaning of this word in the Speech of Allah the Exalted, nor do they realize the (invalid) implication of it being given away if it were valid to be given away!

This kind of status is not reachable by the true scholars who acquired the knowledge, let alone being from the fake Sufis, then they perish by some unsuspected way, while believing that they are, to Allah, indeed accepted, and the fact is that they are the furthest from acceptance, may Allah protect us from the trials and their causes, and from all of the ignorant things and what is like them.

So the statement of the Al-Qarafiy is also explicit in the matter, would Salik say that there is no problem that the Prophet is given the word “Kun” mentioned above since it’s a matter of giving and the one who is given is not a partner to Allah just like how he claimed ?

And in his last video, when he talked about the already given permission to the Prophet for the day of judgement, which he claimed, he distorted what he has originally said in the lecture.

He said in his recent video, that he previously mentioned that the Prophet already has permission for Shafa'ah on the day of judgement , when he says "I am for it, I am for it", and claimed that this is the meaning of Maqam Mahmod, that its an already given permission. Then he said that there are other narrations that says that he will ask for permission.... And this is a manipulation and distortion.

What he originally in the lecture, that the Prophet WILL NOT ASK FOR PERMISSION, this is what he said exactly word by word:

اسمعوا الحديث الصحيح: تتداعى المخلوقات كلها على الأنبياء واحدا واحدا، فيبدأون بآدم عليه السلام الى عيسى عليه السلام، وكل يقول نفسي نفسي، فلما يأتون النَبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ماذا يقول؟ هل يقول انتظروا حتى أستأذن الله؟ لا؛ لأن الله أخبره وأذن له أنه بعثه مقاما محمودا وانتهى الأمر. مقام يحمدك فيه الأولون والآخرون يحترمونك. ماذا سيقول: أنا لها مباشرة، أنا لحل المشاكل الآن كاملة على الإطلاق، ما قال سأستأذن الله. قال أنا لها بإخبار من الله، هذا حديث مسلم، أين الإذن؟ متقدم!

He said “When people come to the Prophet, will the Prophet say wait until i ask Allah for permission ? NO ! He will NOT say that i will ask Allah for permission”

This is the first manipulation…

He claimed that other narrations say that he will seek for permission. And this is a LIE, ALL the narrations that were mentioned about the major intercession, in it the Prophet peace be upon him said, "And I ask Allah for permission"

And this is the second manipulation.

So instead of him saying that I was wrong by belying the explicit Hadiths of the Prophet peace be upon him, he chose to be arrogant and to trick Muslims by manipulating to the truth, as if coming back to the truth and realizing your mistake is a bad thing. And this is a known matter about him from the people who were around him, even people from his own community in his village. That he does not see anyone else but his opinion…

This is just a sample example from his manipulation, in addition to many other things where the issue was not even addressed correctly, nor the people who he recorded the video knew that he was recording, nor they gave him permission to share it.

This recording rather shows how desperate he is to get anything to be persistent on this deviant creed and what he thinks as preserving his pride, even if it takes tricking others and recording them while not knowing and twisting the arguments. And this didn’t do anything except that he dug his whole deeper, instead of being merciful to himself by coming back to the truth and being merciful to those who followed him in this deviance.

Therefor, I advice whomever is following this issue, to observe the proofs before anything and not to be tricked, and that Haqq is not known by men but men are known by Haqq, and let Salik provide his proofs and respond to whatever proofs we provided if he has the ability to that.

Morever, if I wanted to share whatever recordings I have then I would, or share names of scholars with big names who watched Salik’s lectures in full then saw our response and approved it (Alhamdu lilah) then I would have, but what I intended to make firm to the audience is to know the Haqq and follow the proofs and not make it a war of names and recording and let the truth be lost, as Salik did not provide any proof to support this deviant creed from Quran, Sunnah nor Ijma’. So don’t be tricked by these deceptions and this these kind of acts belong to the ones who are Muflis (bankrupt).

We have provided a sufficient response, Alhamdu lilah, the matter is very clear and does not need a statement from a scholar, but we had to respond since Salik has tricked muslims to distribute this. creed. And let him respond with a scholarly response if he can.

Additional ignorance's and speculations of Al Salik:

He claimed that this creed was only denied by ibin taymiyah, and this is being ignorant about the deviances of ibin taymiyah were he actually was the first one to deny Tawassul and Istighatha, not this.

Questioner: So is he saying that you can ask the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم directly without intention that Allah is the one who allows it to happen ?

Abdullah al-Khatib: the issue is not around whether he claims it’s by the will of Allah or not, he does say that it’s under the will of Allah, but it’s around that he claims that the Prophet owns the entire universe and that he can give whatever he wishes, just this on its own is against the greatness of Godhood.

Abdullah al-Khatib also said: I was one of his [Salek's] students and studied with him for many years, he does not accept anyone but himself even if you present to him explicit texts. He speaks sometimes about Shafi’iy or Hanafi matters of fiqih without knowledge and if you attempt to correct him by showing him the books of Shafi’iy or Hanafi he will still not accept . So he is very arrogant and a master manipulator and this known by the people close to him. So if I had a chance of .000001% of him accepting the truth without manipulation then I would have discussed this with him. And I reached out to him to advise him on the issue and he doesn’t even look into what you would say, I have at least 570 recorded private lessons with him. And then I realized that he was weak in creed and usul and has many speculations about matters without fully understanding them

the well known Deyobandi Umar Rumi is also supporting Abdullah's posts.

 

In his original post Abdullah al-Khatib [عبدالله الخطيب] says:

Warning muslims against Shaykh Salek Bin Siddina - may Allah guide him and return him to the truth

We were shocked to hear of a corrupt creed spread by Salek Bin Siddina lately in America, during two recorded sessions on social media.

He did not state this creed explicitly in front of me, nor in front of my brothers and my family previously, and we never knew about it, because we would not be silent about clarifying the corruption of such a creed and exposing it to the Muslims.

And among what is very upsetting is that he began spreading this creed in Mauritania also! Thus, (we do this) because of the duty of religious warning, and because we do not fear the blame of any accuser. And I do not give any consideration to my long acquaintance with him - not mine, nor that of my brothers or relatives in America or outside of it.

And this corrupt creed, Murabit al-Hajj did not say it, nor did any of (Salek’s) other shaykhs. Rather, it is a rejected saying, deemed ugly by even the lowest Muslim. And he is not a member of the council of Mauritania, may Allah preserve it. In fact, one of the shaykhs of Salek was indeed asked about it, and he said while suffering from severe sickness – may Allah relieve him – what means: Indeed, whoever says such talk is a great liar, belying the Qur’an and the Sunnah!

(Salek) - may Allah guide him and return him to what is correct - has asserted:
That Allah has given our master, Muhammad ﷺ; possession (tamlik) of the creation,
and has given him control over all matters, giving from it as he wishes and withholding from it as he wishes, and that Allah gave him possession of Judgement Day, and that it is valid for a Muslim to seek from the Messenger ﷺ whatever he wants, and that it is valid that the Messenger grant him that, because the creation, entirely, is his possession.

And all of this, according to him, is not with the meaning of “tawassul (seeking a means)” and “istighathah (seeking assistance)”, because both of those matters are confirmed according to Ahlus-Sunnah, which is that the one who is seeking a means or seeking assistance, in reality, is seeking from Allah the Exalted a benefit or the repulsion of harm by mentioning the name of a Prophet or a waliyy. (Salek’s) talk is not according to this meaning. To the contrary, what he is saying is that the Messenger owns the creation by Allah giving it to him, and the one who owns something does with it as he wants. We seek refuge with Allah from all of that entirely!

Furthermore, he believes that the Messenger rescues people from Hell on Judgment Day without the permission of Allah being given to him at that time, but rather, he does that with prior permission that has been granted to him now - according to his claim. He says that this occurs when the Messenger says: “I am the one for (this major intercession)! I am the one for (this major intercession)!” Such says (Salek), in opposition to the explicit prophetic hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ requests from Allah the permission to intercede, as it came in the authentic reports that he says: “Then I will seek the Permission of my Lord, and then He will permit me.”

This is what he says. We ask Allah for safety and protection from the dispraised extremism, and from exiting the creed of the Sunni Muslims. And this talk exists among some deviant Sufis claimers and some Shiites. As for the Sunnis - May Allah support them - they do not believe in such things! May Allah protect us!

And it is sufficient to refute this talk that conflicts with the religious texts for us to mention the Saying of the Exalted:

﴿قُلْ مَن يَرْزُقُكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَمَّن يَمْلِكُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَمَن يُخْرِجُ الْحَيَّ مِنَ الْمَيِّتِ وَيُخْرِجُ الْمَيِّتَ مِنَ الْحَيِّ وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ ۚ فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللَّهُ ۚ فَقُلْ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ﴾

< Say (O Muhammad): “Who gives you sustenance from the sky and the earth? Or Who possesses the hearing and the visions? And Who brings forth the living from the dead, and brings forth the dead from the living? And Who manages the affair?” Then they will say: “Allah!” Say then: “Will you not then beware (of associating partners with Allah)?” >

As well as His Saying:

﴿ قُل لِّمَنِ الْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهَا إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ (84) سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ ۚ قُلْ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ (85) قُلْ مَن رَّبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ السَّبْعِ وَرَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ (86) سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ ۚ قُلْ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ (87) قُلْ مَن بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ يُجِيرُ وَلَا يُجَارُ عَلَيْهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ (88) سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ ۚ قُلْ فَأَنَّىٰ تُسْحَرُونَ ﴾

< Say (O Muhammad): “Who possesses the earth and what is in it - if you know?” ۞ They will say: “It belongs to Allah!” Say: “Do you not then take heed?” ۞ Say: “Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the grand ^Arsh?” ۞ They will say: “It belongs to Allah!” Say: “Do you not then fear God?” ۞ Say: “Who has in His Possession the Dominion of everything, and He rescues and is not rescued - if you know?” ۞ They will say: “It belongs to Allah!” Say: “Then how do you belie?” >
As well as His Saying:

﴿قُل لَّا أَمْلِكُ لِنَفْسِي نَفْعًا وَلَا ضَرًّا إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَلَوْ كُنتُ أَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ لَاسْتَكْثَرْتُ مِنَ الْخَيْرِ وَمَا مَسَّنِيَ السُّوءُ ۚ إِنْ أَنَا إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ وَبَشِيرٌ لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ﴾

< Say: “I do not possess for my self (the summoning of) benefit or (the repulsion of) harm except whatever (possession) Allah willed. And had I known the unseen I would have accumulated a plenitude of the good, and no evil would have touched me! I am not but a warner and a giver of glad tidings to a people who believe.” > (Surah Al-A^raf 188)
As well as His Saying:

﴿إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ﴾

<Indeed, you do not guide whom you would love (to be guided [O Muhammad]). Rather, Allah guides whom He wills, and He is Knowledgeable about the guided ones.>

And it was reported in Sahih Muslim: “O clan of Hashim! Save yourselves from Hell! I possess nothing that can protect you from Allah in any way!”

The scholars have mentioned books/sections that go over apostasy (meaning what is blasphemy among the convictions, sayings, and actions) is the following:

Al-Qurafiyy the Malikiyy, in ‘Al-Furuq’ - in his talk about the prohibition of the supplicant seeking from Allah what the definitive mental evidence proves is negated; that which if it were confirmed would be contrary to the Greatness of God's Lordship – said something like: For a supplicant’s stupidity and insolence to reach the point of asking Allah to grant him divine power and will of creating or annihilating or (to grant him) authoritative, fulfilled management, the definitive mental evidence has proven the impossibility of that for other than Allah the Exalted. Therefore, seeking such a thing would be a request to share with Allah the Exalted in Dominion and Ownership, and that is blasphemy.

That was done by a group of ignorant Sufis; they were saying “So-and-so was given (the word) ‘kun’!” They also ask to be given that word “kun” which is in the Saying of the Exalted:

{إنما قولنا لشيء إذا أردناه أن نقول له كن فيكون} [النحل: 40]

<Merely, Our (Allah’s) Saying to something if We willed for it to exist is that We say to it: “Kun (Be),” and it shall be.>

And they do not know the meaning of this word in the Speech of Allah the Exalted, nor do they realize the (invalid) implication of it being given away if it were valid to be given away!

This kind of status is not reachable by the true scholars who acquired the knowledge, let alone being from the fake Sufis, then they perish by some unsuspected way, while believing that they are, to Allah, indeed accepted, and the fact is that they are the furthest from acceptance, may Allah protect us from the trials and their causes, and from all of the ignorant things and what is like them.
End of Al-Qarafi’s statement.

IMPORTANT: The holy verse does not mean that Allah pronounces the word “Kun”, we seek refuge with Allah from resembling the creation as the speech of Allah that is the eternal attribute of Allah is not in a language, nor voices, and its unlike the speech of the creation. The general meaning of it is that creation is an easy matter to Allah.

Also, Ibn Hajar Al-Haytamiyy said in ‘Al-I^lam Bi-Qawati^il-Islam (p.218): “And also among what would be blasphemy in supplication is for the supplicant to seek the negation of what the definitive intellect proves is confirmed among what denies the Greatness of Godhood …. or that control of the world be given to him as he wants.”

And we did not forget to mention that some of the students of Shaykh Murabit Al-Hajj - may Allah have mercy upon him - hit the target with some references about this subject, so May Allah compensate them on our behalf with goodness.

And we have sought from him to retract this mistake and to clarify the truth to the Muslims as a mercy on himself and a mercy on who listens to him. Unfortunately, he refused, so there was no alternative to this broadcasted warning.

So be alert, O Muslims, and O people of Mauritania - especially the shaykhs! Beware of introducing this misguidance amongst you and warn your families and your children and your students!

And God most glorified and exalted knows best and is Most Wise

The one needy of his Lord’s Pardon, ^Abdullah Al-Khatib, wrote this on the date of the first of Jumada Al-Awwal, which happens to be 12-16-2020.