Ahbash attack Shaykh Salek

Abdullah al-Khatib is an ahmaq. He used to be close to Sh Salek until Shaykh Salik contradicted his fasid aqida. He will never openly or in private explain his fasid Habashi-Rafidi-Wahabi aqida

 

it seems that a lot of people are getting nervous about sh. salek's increasing influence in the west - perhaps they fear that their fan bases will take a hit and that sh. salek had no business coming to the west and disrupting their parties. he was better off in the deserts of Mauritania.

lately, we have been witnessing the ravages of jealousy quite a lot.

jealousy combined with wahabi literalism - a fatal combination.

the ahabaash are getting their deserts for disrespecting an honored companion (رضي الله عنه) of RasulAllah (صلى الله عليه وسلم). They have now become blind to the greatness of the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself.

It's always been the same - people descend into bid'ah one disingenuous step at a time. see the dayabina's idols.

this nobody will ask us to leave ibn hajar's understanding of hadith for his demented wahabistic ravings - someone had better shove his head under a tap of cold water.

mai to malik hi kahoonga, ke ho Malik ke habeeb
ya'ani mehboob-o-Muhib mein, nahi mera tera

Alahazrat explains the matter in two lines.

----
Anyway - these are the ahbaash about sayyiduna Gwath-al-Azam (رضي الله عنه)




they are all mushriks according to this khateeb guy ...

 

Response of Abdullah Khateeb regarding the statement of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami:


I know this statement and it doesn't give the meaning that Salik claimed at all. So it does not hold these meanings:

1- That the Prophet owns the entire universe
2- The the Prophet has tassarruf in all creations
3- That the Prophet can directly be asked for anything (even the entire universe as your shaikh mentioned) and he can give it because he owns the universe
4- That the world is in the Prophets Qabdah

And while that specific statement does not give whats mentioned above, the statemtent itself is also not explicit and may have many possibilities in meaning, and the Usuli base (Qa'idah) is that إذا جاء الإحتمال بطل الإستدلال

meaning if there are multiple possibilities that exist within a statement, then it is invalid to seek a argument. So this statement does not help at all.

Moreover, if there is a statement of a scholar that may have a problematic apparent meaning, then we try to give it a meaning that agrees with the religion if there is room for that. Othwerise it's completely rejected.

As mater of facts, there are Sahih Hadiths that has a problematic apparent meaning, and because of that they are not used as evidence in the creed. An example is the Hadith if the Jariyah in Sahih Muslim, where its said that the Prophet peace be upon him said to the Jariyah "أين الله" which literally means in English "where is Allah", this specific narration is not used as evidence in creed according to Ahlusunnah (is only used by Wahhabis and other Mujasimah) because the apparent meaning is against Usul for various reasons.

Even Imam Muslim himself, didn't not list this Hadith in the chapter of Iman (Belief) and listed it in the chapter of Freeing a Slave.

Al-Nawawi here, made Ta'weel of this Hadith (valid Ta'wil) that is based on the Arabic language and the creed of Muslims.

Thats an example of the firm methodology of extracting creed of texts, but whomever wants to just mention any narration then his creed will be weaker than a spider web.

 

... Directly or by implications

 

mulla ali qari on the meaning of the verse that did not go into thick skulls:

 

Funnily enough, they don't like devbandis, they say devbandis change color like chameleons!

 

in refutation of the cult of harariy - may Allah guide you and grant you good sense to do tawbah.

this is what ibn Hajar al-haytami said in his minah al-makkiyyah sh. hamziyyah. let the deobandis and ahbash weep on each others wretched shoulders. and slap each other for that is what they deserve.

you will see that if any one of them has shame, they will apologise. and since they ain't got none, don't expect any.

 

I know they say imam Ghazali erred on something, just like they say for imam Busiri and some other celebrated akabireen. Wouldn't be an issue and we could write it off to ilmi ikhtilaf if they were also willing to accept Abdullah Harari too can err.

 

Just take it with a bucket of salt.

Ahbash are foolish. They permit istighatha themselves but have a problem with others. Most of the time when they do takfeer of Sunnis they project their own understanding of things onto people and attack those imaginary monsters.

I know they were once arguing with an İslami bhai over knowledge of Prophet 3alaihis salam, and the habashi guy kept insisting that you guys believe his knowledge is equal to Allah's, despite the İslami bhai insisting no we don't.

Then when explaining the line of the Burdah min 3uloomika 3ilmal lauhi Wal qalami, they say he does have knowledge of the unseen as much as Allah gave him 3alaihis salam, but imam Busiri was wrong on those lines. Hence they will still shamelessly recite the Burdah but "censor" the "problematic" lines, much like the taqiyyabaz devbandi who will stand alongside us during salame Raza and then go and badmouth Ala Hazrat, or all the shameless tafzilis and neem rawafid and tahiris who will recite salame Raza and yet spit bid3ahs like pan and litter the surroundings.

They believe in afzaliyat of Shaykhayn, and even say hadith from Ameer Mu3awiyah is accepted, but still like donkeys will say that he fought against Mawla Ali out of nafs, lust for power etc. Like fools they keep parroting that whoever fought Mawla Ali is sinful except Ummuna 3aishah coz she regretted and repented it. When you tell them it's ijtihad, what about Talha and Zubair, they're from the 3ashara mubashshara and you shamelessly pray by their tawassul, they give you the deer in the headlights face. Radi Allahu 3anhum. (Yet, try telling them Abdullah Harari committed error on this or that matter, and watch them go ballistic)

They're basically a waste of time and can't be taken seriously.

 

no wonder the ahbash are deprived of understanding!

let the ahbash now do takfir or tabdiy of ibn Hajar for he wrote in his sharh of burdah (and notice the footnotes and the ahadith)

only a blasted ignoramus or a wretched wahabi with a shrivelled heart will ignore the blinding proof for the knowledge of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. as for the dayabina:

dev ke bandon se kab hai ye khitab?
hum hain abd e mustafa phir tujh ko kya?

[strangely the scanned version of umdah of ibn hajar does not have page 671 which has the hadith of ikhtisam al-mala' al-a'ala; i hope it is left out accidentally. wAllahu a'alam.]

 

precisely the reason we have abandoned the mubtadiy Dall muDill abdullah harariy who insulted sayyiduna mu'awiyah raDi'Allah anhu.

these idiots are arabs and cannot understand simple arabic sentences, which ajamis like us clearly understand. it is not mere gift of arabic speech, but sound faith and intelligence that is lacking in mubtadiys.

here is imam nawawi teaching you the meaning of what do we mean by ilm al-ghayb:

for translation:
http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/nawawi-on-ilm-al-ghayb.3638/#post-8506

 

let them. and they will all be humiliated.

now ahbash will either have to label the same charge on ibn Hajar al-haytami OR withdraw and apologise to shaykh salek.

 

the ahbash are mubtadiyin and their leader is well known for being insolent and disrespectful. i have no respect for abdullah hariri - he is insolent and arrogant. and there is no noor in his books.

the ahbash have been tampering with aqidah texts and these people with their limited understanding and even littler reading criticising sunni ulama.

the person who wrote that is ignorant and the very ibn Hajar haytami he quotes for proof held the aqidah he excoriates shaykh salik for!

----
in jawhar al-munazzam, imam ibn Hajar al-haytami wrote:



the same thing, almost verbatim which shaykh salek said!

---
as for the person who wrote those lines adducing his own misunderstanding and mistaken notion that shaykh salek claimed that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam will help independently of Allah!

that is a wahabi's reading! not a sunni's.

 

The Deobandis must be loving this. It is the duty of Sunni scholars in the West to voice support for Shaykh Salek against the AICP and Deobandis and whichever other heretical group is attacking him. His beliefs are the same as that of our scholars and of Alahazrat, as expressed in Umur e Ishrin and other works.

 

Ahbash are themselves problematic. they have no moral standing to attack shaykh salek hafizahullah