The Ahabash agree with Shaykh Osman Sirajuddin Alayhi Rahma who was the leader of the Naqshabandi and Qadri Tariqah in Kurdistan and was revered by the likes of Shaykh Muhammad Nazim al-Haqqani , Shaykh Saiid Burhani , Shaykh Ahmad Habbal , Shaykh Husayn ( The last student of Shaykh Yusuf al-Nabhani) , Shaykh Ninowy , Shaykh Abdul Karim Mudarris , Shaykh Abdul Rahman Shaghouri , Shaykh Abdullah Sirajuddin , Shaykh Muhammad Masum Naqshabandi , Shaykh Ubaid Allah Qadri and many other ‘Ulama from Syria, Iraq,Hind and many other Countries .
New Statements by the Ahabash on Shaykh Asrar Rashid!!! The Ahabash have recently claimed that Shaykh Asrar Rashid was refuted six years ago by their scholars on his beliefs about Hazrat Ameer Mu'awiya radiyallahu ta'ala anhu and the issue of Rasul Allah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam being Noor or Bashar . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shaykh Ahmad Habbal Alayhi Rahma and Shaykh Saiid met Shaykh Syed Jameel Halim who is from the Ahabash on the Occasion of Mawlid al-Nabi in Homs in 2007 . Shaykh Jameel Halim has attacked many Awliya Allah - Amongst them he has attacked : Shaykh Mutawalli al-Sharawi Dr. Muhammad Said al-Buti Dr. Wahbat al-Zuhayli of Syria Shaykh Rajab Dib al-Naqshbandi Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi Naqshbandi Shaykh Abdulllah Faiz Daghestani Naqshabandi Alayhi Rahma Shaykh Hasan Khalid Alayhi Rahma Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi Shaykh Abdul Rahman Shaghouri Alayhi Rahma and the Shuyukh of the Shadhili Tariqah The Tijani Tariqah ( whom he calls Kafirs) Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi Alayhi Rahma and many other Awliya Allah and 'Ulama
How the Ahbash lie about the scholars and the Awliya Allah : A notable example of their tampering is Ibn Arslan al-Ramli’s thousand-line poem Alfiyyat Safwat al-Zubad fil-Fiqh al-Shafiʿi which the Ahbash brought out in Beirut in 1988 then 1991 then 1994, all three editions suppressing this line: Whatever took place between the Companions we keep quiet about it And we assert and affirm that the reward of ijtihad was obtained. (wa-ma jara bayna al-sahabi naskutu ʿanhu wa-ajra al-ijtihadi nuthbitu) After their tampering was revealed they put back the verse in the fourth edition (2001) but they added a long footnote in which they object “The truth is…” and in which they inject their poisonous beliefs. Another instance in which their lying was exposed was the fabrication of a pseudo-fatwa by the Mufti of Daghistan against Shaykh Abdullah Fa’iz al- Daghistani the teacher of Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi in which the Mufti of Daghistan supposedly declares Shaykh Abdullah a heretic. In reality Shaykh Abdullah left Daghistan in his childhood and was raised in Turkey where he lived all his life until he emigrated to Damascus, so he was completely unknown in Daghistan. This fatwa was declared a fabrication by an ex-Habashi, the historian of Damascus Shaykh Muhammad Muʿtazz al-Subayni. Another falsehood of ʿAbd Allah al-Harari is his invention of a person he called “Muhammad Zahid al-Naqshbandi” whom he claimed had said of Shaykh Abdullah al-Daghistani “he is neither a Sunni nor a Naqshbandi, and he is not connected but disconnected.” The Ahbash disseminated these words in their literature and on their websites, and how much they love to slanders others’ religion and lineages! In reality this Muhammad Zahid does not exist, and to “narrate” from him is from the craftiness of perjurers, liars and forgers. In 2004 one of the Ahbash by the name of Samir al-Qadi (arraigned in a US court for a felony in 1997) published a book he named Kashf Dalalat Nazim al-Qubrusi which he crammed with lies against Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi. After this the director of Awqaf in Dubai at that time Shaykh ʿIsa al-Himyari visited al-Harari in his den in Beirut and advised him to repent and desist from attacking Shaykh Nazim. Al-Himyari later recounted how strangely and inappropriately they acted toward him to the point that when he exited their building he said of them: it appears they practice witchraft! Al-Harari’s hatred of Muslims scholars: Unbridled envy has pushed al-Harari to treat the most prominent Sunni Muslim scholars as fair game for his attacks and that is what he taught his followers to do after him. It is on record that he and they have levelled accusations of unbelief (kufr) and/or misguidance (dalal) against the following among others: - Shaykh Mutawalli al-Shaʿrawi (1911-1998) one of the foremost scholars of tafsir in our time. - Dr. Muhammad Saʿid al-Buti against whom al-Harari said in al-Taʿawun ʿala al-Nahy ʿan al-Munkar: “He disseminates misguidance” and against whom one of the Ahbash authored a thick volume entitled al-Radd al-ʿIlmi ʿala al-Buti, which consists exclusively of distortions, exaggerations, misinterpretations, and outright lies. - Dr. Wahbat al-Zuhayli of Syria, one of the most prominent contemporary Sunni scholars and author of three commentaries on the Qur’an whom they accuse of apostasy and hypocrisy among other mendacious charges, and at whom they throw the vilest nicknames. - Shaykh Rajab Dib al-Naqshbandi of Damascus who travelled to Beirut and asked them to stop attacking him. This noble shaykh has authored a commentary on Qur’an of more than thirty volumes which is not yet published. - Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi against whom one of their liars authored a book which we mentioned. - The shaheed and late Mufti of the Republic of Lebanon Shaykh Hasan Khalid (1921-1989) whom they called a kafir on street placards in Lebanon as they tried to promote the Habashi Nizar Halabi (1952-1995) to replace him. After Shaykh Hasan Khalid moved to block al-Harari’s residency in Lebanon he was killed in a car explosion. Six years later Halabi himself was killed. - Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alawi al-Maliki (1948-2004) the late hadith scholar of Mecca and Sufi educator. He announced in 1999 that al-Harari had brazenly declared him to be an apostate only because al-Maliki refused to declare Ibn Taymiyya an apostate in his books. Anyone who does not declare Ibn Taymiyya to be an unbeliever is himself an unbeliever according to the Ahbash which is pure extremism. - Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi against whom the Habashi Usama Sayyid wrote a book he entiled al-Qaradawi fil-ʿAra’ (Qaradawi Laid Bare) and of which he accused him of everything short of killing Habeel. - Al-Harari declared Nasir al-Albani to be an unbeliever in his 1959 book Nusrat al-Taʿaqqub al-Hathith only because the latter differed with him over the issue of prayer-beads.
Al-Harari’s tampering of the Tahawiyya and the Nasafiyya : Shaykh Al-Harari manipulates the statement of al-Tahawi “We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (upon him blessings and peace)… We never mention them except in a good way” and reinterprets it with these comments in his so-called Izhar al-ʿAqidat al-Sunniyyah: “Its meaning is that on the whole we never mention them except in a good way, but whoever is authentically charged with something, he is critiqued for it (man thabata ʿalayhi shay’ yuntaqad ʿalayh)”. He reiterates this tampering in his book al-Matalib al-Wafiyyah fi Sharh al-ʿAqidat al-Nasafiyyah when commenting on Imam al-Nasafi’s statement: “One must refrain from mentioning the Companions except in good terms.” Al-Harari comments: “It does not mean that it is forbidden to mention individuals among the Companions other than in good terms.” In the edition of the ʿAqida of Imam Ahmad al-Rifaʿi which al-Harari’s followers published under the title Ijabat al-Daʿi ila Bayan Iʿtiqad al-Rifaʿi the main text states: “One must firmly believe in the high merit of the Companions and their order of sequence, and the fact that the best of people after the Messenger of Allah (upon him blessings and peace) is Abu Bakr, then ʿUmar, then ʿUthman, then ʿAli, Allah be well-pleased with all of them. One must keep the best opinion of all of the Companions and praise them just as Allah Most High and His Messenger praised them. ” But the Habashi commentators state in the footnote to this passage: “It does not mean that they are all God-fearing and righteous” (laysa muraduhu annahum kulluhum atqiya’ salihun). Then the comment goes on to adduce as proof for its vile claim the hadith of the Pond (which the Rafidis always quote) and the hadith “Whoever leaves obedience and parts with the congregation then dies has died the death of Jahiliyya” then they say openly: “And this applies to Muʿawiya and those who were with him.” Shaykh Abdullah Harari’s attacks on Khalid ibn al-Walid, Muʿawiya, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAs and ʿA’isha the Wife of the Prophet (upon him and them blessings and peace) We already mentioned al-Harari’s insulting stance toward ʿA’isha the Mother of the Believers above. In his book Sarih al-Bayan again he pinpoints Khalid ibn al-Walid, Muʿawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, and ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAs (Allah be well pleased with them) as lying outside the Prophetic prohibition against insulting the Companions. In other words, al-Harari considers it permissible to insult those great Companions. When scholars and common Muslims took him to task for that deviancy he and his followers would say “the Companions are not infallible” or they would say that ʿAli himself disparaged Muʿawiya, so why can’t we? Hence you can see this Harari say in his book al-Durr al-Mufid that “Muʿawiya was self-centered” (Muʿawiya kana ananiyyan) and in his book al- Maqalat al-Sunniyya he states that “the goal of Muʿawiya and of all those that were present with him at Siffin was dunya, because his ambition was to be king and he loved leadership with a passion.” This is how that man spoke of Muʿawiya, Allah be well-pleased with him and make him pleased, the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (upon him blessings and peace), the scribe of his revelation, the maternal uncle of the Believers for whom the Prophet supplicated in the sound hadith: “O Allah, make him a guide who is well-guided and guide others with him!” (Ahmad, al- Tirmidhi and others), for whose army he promised Paradise by saying: “The first army of my Community to raid by sea have made it incumbent” (al- Bukhari), whom ʿUmar al-Faruq appointed as governor of the countries of Shaam and whom ʿUthman Dhul-Nurayn confirmed (Allah be well-pleased with them), after which he undertook jihad, secured the borders, overcame the enemies of Islam, and ruled people with a Divinely-appointed polity.
Shaykh Abdullah Harari’s disrespect of the Companions (Allah be well-pleased with them) Shaykh ʿAbd Allah al-Harari authored many books in which he attributes sinfulnessn and depravity to the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (upon him blessings and peace) who fought against ʿAli ibn Abi Talib (Allah be wellpleased with him). Among those books is one he entitled The Legal Evidence for Establishing the Sinfulness of Those of the Companions or Successors ʿAli Fought Against (al-Dalil al-Sharʿi ʿala Ithbat man Qaatalahum ʿAli min Sahabi aw Tabiʿi) in which al-Harai openly attributes sinfulness, rebellion, oppression and rebellion to the Mother of the Believers ʿA’isha, Talha, and al-Zubayr. He takes the same stance in his books Sarih al-Bayan, Izhar al- ʿAqida, al-Matalib al-Wafiyya, al-Dalil al-Qawim, Bughyat al-Talib, and al- Maqalat al-Sunniyya. In all the above-mentioned books he also attributes these traits to Khalid ibn al-Walid, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAs, and Muʿawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, except that he says that the first group repented while the latter group, in his view, died the death of Jahiliyya. This is shiʿism. Al-Harari’s tampering of the Qur’an, Hadith and Consensus in his disparagement of the Companions : Shaykh Abdullah Al-Harari in his book Izhar al-ʿAqidat al-Sunniyya refrains from attributing uprightness (ʿadala) to all of the Companions without exception, although al- Qurtubi states in his Tafsir: “ALL of the Companions are upright and chosenfriends of Allah, His elite in His creation after His Messengers and His Prophets. That is the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah, and what the Jamaʿah of the Imams of this Ummah follows.” Similarly Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: “The Companions are ALL upright and held in high esteem by unanimous agreement of the specialists of hadith.” In contradiction to the above, al-Harari dismisses the Prophetic warnings against insulting the Companions such as the hadith in Muslim, “Do not insult any of my Companions” (la tasubbu ahadan min ashabi) which Ibn Hibban in his Sahih included in a chapter entitled “Mention of the report that indicates that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (upon him blessings and peace) are ALL trustworthy and upright,” the hadith “Allah! Allah! Fear Him regarding my Companions” (Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, and others), and the hadith “Whoever insults my Companions, may Allah curse him!” (al-Bazzar, al- Tabarani, Ibn Abi ʿAsim and others; sahih). Al-Harari interprets away these hadiths as supposedly meaning only the First and Foremost of the Muhajirun and Ansar, not all of the Companions. This is a claim based on idle lust (hawa) since not only it is unsubstantiated but, more importantly, Allah Most High states : {And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well-pleased with them and they are well-pleased with Him and He has made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph} (9:100). Moreover, contrary to their claims, these hadiths apply in the universal sense and not in the restricted sense of the specific circumstance when they were first spoken.
Shaykh Abdullah Harari’s dishonesty in falsely claiming authorship and in misquoting texts Shaykh Abdullah Al-Harari is known for his untrustworthiness in citing texts and he also claims Authorship of texts which are not his. He stole credit for a text authored by al Habib Abdullah ibn Husayn ibn Tahir Ba ʿAlawi (1778-1855) which he Republished under the title Bughyat al-Talib li-Maʿrifat al-ʿIlm al-Dini al- Wajib in 1407H with the statement “Authored by ʿAbd Allah al-Harari” on the Cover, then again in 1411H, but after he was exposed he admitted in the third Edition in 1416H that the book was actually authored by Ibn Tahir. He also tampers texts according to his whim, as he did in his book al-Kaafil bi-ʿIlm al-Din al-Daruri which is in reality taken from Ibn Tahir’s Sullam al- Tawfiq. Shaykh Abdullah Al-Harari simply suppressed whatever contradicts his positions, such as Ibn Tahir’s discussion of the prohibition of disparaging the scholars and of women leaving their homes perfumed and beautified. In his own commentaryon al-Kaafil entitled Hall Alfaz al-Kafil. He asserts that women can leave the house perfumed and beautified as long as they do not intend to display themselves to men. In that book he also states: “Those people that were with Muʿawiya, there was not a single wali among them. As for those that came out to al-Basra and fought ʿAli, among those people were two major ones of the elite of the Companions. Despite this we say that these two sinned, they fell into sin.” This is what he said, and Allah knows best whether he means Talha and al-Zubayr by “these two;” as for ʿA’isha the Mother of the Believers it appears he does not consider her among the Awliya’ or among the major ones of the elite of the Companions! Anyone who wishes to ascertain the untrustworthiness of Shaykh Abdullah al-Harari’s manner of citing texts can compare his excerpts of al-Ashʿari’s words quoted from Ibn Furak’s famous book Maqalat al-Ashʿari in Shaykh Abdullah al-Harari’s so-called Izhar al-ʿAqidat al-Sunniyya and Sarih al-Bayan with the original text of Ibn Furak which states verbatim that the reason the Sahaba differed was ijtihad. Shaykh Abdullah Al-Harari likewise suppresses the words of the great Ashʿari imams to that effect such as Imam al-Haramayn and those we have already mentioned.
you're the idiot who can't read english. i know what incorrect means. you remind me of my old sparring partner faqeerkhan! i asked: WHAT is incorrect about the other 6 points? a) MY ATTRIBUTION of the statements to those people, that is, do you think they did not say those things and i wrongly said that they said it? (if i am incorrect in stating the other 6 points too, then that basically means that i am incorrect on ALL 9 points. why ask me evidence for just those 3, and not all 9? if you imply this, then you have to give me the reason why you are not asking me evidence for all 9 items and just the 3! till then i won't entertain you) OR b) the STATEMENTS of those people are incorrect according to Islam and i have NOT erred in attributing it to them, that is i have correctly reported what they said? (which makes ME correct on those 6 points and also shows that you acknowledge it, and i understand your desire for proofs on the remaining 3, and you shall get it immediately) see this is a direct question, i love direct questions. and sorry i missed it the first time. i use their former names because i believe they are NOT loyal to Islam or Muslims, but rather their 'former' people and ways. i do it deliberately to insult, degrade and undermine them and am not ashamed to state it openly. i believe it is thawab to insult the people of bid3ah, kufr, and nifaq and i am hopeful of this thawab from Allah. ---- now unless you grow a brain and/or actually understand what is written, do not waste any more of my time with your verbal diarrhea. on something like a text based forum such as this, your only tools of trade are words and language, and if you can't use them properly, you should not be here. you should be taking language classes. ---- check!
He accuses me of answering in "cryptic nonsense", perhaps it's because he himself needs to follow his own advice and print out my post and find out what "incorrect" means. If you don't know what "incorrect" means in English then I can't help you and no one on Earth can either. Why do you insist that I say "Abdal Qadir you're right"? Does it make your nafs feel even more bloated than it already is? Why can't you just take my statement of saying that I believe the other 6 are "incorrect"? What's so "cryptic" and nonsensical about that? Pathetic. Try again. And with all your turning-the-tables and re-questinong me, it cleary shows you're the one who prefers to dilly-dally and not just simply answer the questions. So just re-read my post and answer the questions. And you've also skipped out on answering my question of why you refer to them with their former birth-given names instead of their chosen Muslim names. My point is exactly what I've stated from the get-go...What YOU'VE stated is "news" to me. I've never heard any Sunni alim state about them what you stated. So I'm simply asking you to provide the "a." and "b.", as I wrote above. Not once did I ever say that you have NO proof. I'm just asking you to provide your basis in a legitimate manner because you're original posts leave a lot to be desired. So just come out and answer the quesitons. Do you know what it means to be "direct", "straightforward", "terse", "concise", "brevity", etc. do any of these words mean anything to you? Is it that "cryptic" to you??? If you're going to be a dunce again and ask me more questions then just forget I ever asked you anything and we'll just call it a day and agree that you're an idiot. In the end he writes "your move". What is this a board game??? You fool, I'm asking you a question, I'm not playing bloody carrom board with you! It just shows what a hostile personality this guy has where no one can ask him direct questions and they need to first go through a survey of questions by HIM wherein they also need to acknowledge and explicitly state "abdal qadir you're right".
Don't use colorfuls with me kid! I asked you a straight question and so far you are answering in cryptic nonsense. As for being a man and standing behind my words, it's still on and a promise I will give you the evidence you crave... just clarify this cryptic message of yours first: What is incorrect? a) My statements that those people are all 'losers' for what I attributed to them (meaning that along with those 3 points, I am wrong on the remaining 6 points also, that is, I am wrong on all 9 points!) - or b) Their statements are incorrect (meaning that I am right on those 6 counts, but for the remaining 3 counts, you need evidence from me) ------ If it is (a) then you need to give me a reason why you picked those 3 points in asking for evidence and not ALL 9 points! Until you give me your reason for picking out those 3 out of the 9 points, I don't want to waste my time with a college boy pumped up with hot air! ----- If it is (b), then just say so "AbdalQadir you're right on 6 of those 9 points, and give me your evidence for the balance 3" - and my evidences will follow in my next post on this thread bi-idhnillah! ----- If you can't comprehend what I wrote above, I suggest you print out this thread in its entirety and take it to someone who can read English properly, ask him to explain it to you properly and patiently understand it, and then come back to me with your answer! ------ Your move.
No, you said it, now you provide all the proofs. Don't tell me to start using internet search functions you loser. Be a man and stand behind your words. You have yet to provide any explicit proof that they a.) have said exactly what you've attributed to them, and b.) have shown textual proof to show the basis for your conclusory statements about them. And to answer your question, yes, I do believe the things mentioned in those other 6 are incorrect.
you did not answer my question why not the other 6 points? are they not "news" to you? if you know about them (the remaining 6 points), do you agree with them or not? and why? then you can have all the proofs you want. they said those things. alternately it all exists on this forum. just use the search function and you don't even have to ask me. if they didn't say/do those things, i have no reason to attribute it to them.
There is a game being played here by those joining new to regurgitate ad nauseum the same old stories
Sure...because I have not seen the proof for the accusations you made against them and nor have I heard any Sunni alim say what you said about them. So in other words, your accusations are "news" to me. So provide a.) their statements, and b.) how you derived your conclusions from their statements in light of textual proof sources. Also, I find it odd that you call them by their former Christian-given names despite being aware that they've converted to Islam many years ago. Do you consider them muslims? If so, then why do you call them by their former names?
You've said some bold words above. Do you care to provide proof? I kindly ask that you provide explicit proof with details for each of your explicit accusations above. Show the exact words from these videos/papers which you've used to derive these accusations. Thank you.
Ustadh there is no reason to even hypothesize a situation of these filthy wahabis being the only hadith scholars left, and us joining them. such hypothesis does not feel appropriate. Also, from my experience with them, even if they delete all the filth of their filthy elders, they still have to answer for the even more filthier beliefs and things they spew daily and have gathered around them. They have surpassed their elders in bid'a. They are just like anyother wahabi; they look Muslim; but are not like Muslims.
i do not doubt that shaykh gibril is a learned man. i do not conceal it either that i had/have great admiration for his writing - of both form and content. nor do i pretend that i know better than him (in islamic sciences). but of late, i have been intensely disappointed with him because of his fatwa on eShaykh and his continued silence on the nazim affair. the fatwa against aHbash is mainly because they insulted his shaykh;* he picks on their flaws left and right (which is not what i am squabbling about) yet, he does not show the same fervor against devbandis for insulting the Messenger sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and closes his eyes for all these things under 'good opinion of muslims' etc. wAllah, one insult against the Messenger sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was enough to disown them, compared to a thousand directed at his shaykh. but, yet he dilly-dallies on this issue and 'advises' sunnis to bury the hatchet and join with them. by Allah! we will not join them even if they are the only hadith scholars left on this earth, as long as they print the filth spewed by thanawi and khalil insulting the messenger sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. as long as they do not distance themselves from such insults. what is worse is that they actively defend this filth. if you cannot find the courage to disown the entire world (if need be) for the sake of the messenger, sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, then all your learning and preaching is of little value; if you cannot put your honour and standing on the line to defend the messenger sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, then would you give your life? ---------- ismayil dihlawi cast the first stone in the subcontinent upon all things sunniyat. and if it was not for devbandis and the school of deoband, he would have been long forgotten. devbandis actively revived his heresies and sustain it until now. ironically, they are viewed as the defenders of sunnis against salafis, whereas ismayil INTRODUCED all the heresies of those who call themselves as salafis. abdu'l fattah abu ghuddah even included ismayil paleed in his list of 'hanafis'. laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah. ------ * i used to be non-commital about nazim qubrusi just because of shaykh gibril. if a man of such learning speaks well of him, we must be restrained, i said to myself. but the video of the nazim-pope meeting incinerated any reservation. even if we can find a flimsy excuse to exempt him from takfir, i still cannot accept a waliy would go to an enemy of Allah and ask for his du'a. will shaykh gibril explain the wisdom of jama'ah and jumu'ah? my present circumstances do not allow me to travel, but in sha Allah, when i am able to do so in the coming years, i shall try to go and ask him myself. it is exceedingly strange that a man who had the courage to abandon a religion for truth, remains with a shaykh in spite of so many inconsistencies. Allah ta'ala knows best why. wa billahi't tawfiq.
