Understanding Proofs and Evidences, Al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel
And The Corrupted Foundations of Abu Usamah Khalifah Of Green Lane Mosque: PART 4
Taking Narrations from Innovators Who Narrate the Noble Ahaadeeth of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam) – The Fraud of Abu Usamah on Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (died 204H, rahimahullaah)
Listen to Abu Usaamah’s claims regarding Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee here (from his lecture of so called “advice”):
(Here Abu Usamah claims in this clip that Imaam ash-Shaaf’iee praised and took knowledge from and innovator, named Ibraheem ibn Abee Yahyaa (original recording here in response no. 7))
And also later:
(Here Abu Usamah justifying working with and praising ahlul-bid’ah, (original recording here in response no. 7))
After listening to this deceitful speech of Abu Usaamah, a person who has not studied or someone who is not “switched-on” and does not take the time out to seek clarification or verification may be tricked into thinking that Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullaah) would cooperate with and praise the innovators, even if they were Raafidah Shi’ah, Mu’tazilah and Jahmiyyah! Furthermore the scholars would allow ash-Shaafi’ee to get on with his praise of the Mubtadi’ah (innovators) and not criticise him – and in essence condone the praise of the Mubtadi’ah. So why, therefore, should anyone criticise Abu Usamah, or Adnan Abdul-Qaadir for praising people who others see to be misguided? Why criticise Abu Usamah for sitting with them on platforms and remaining silent about their catastrophic innovations!?
Abu Usamah, and those upon his path, are more severe and more dangerous upon the Salafi da’wah than the innovators: Ibn ‘Awn (rahimahullaah) said: “Those who sit with the People of Innovation are more severe upon us than the People of Innovation themselves.” Al-Ibaanah (2/273). Meaning, those who sit with them, aid them, call others to benefit from them, praise them, or translate praises for them, recommend them, accommodate them – and support them against the Salafis. By Allaah, they are enemies of our da’wah, and the da’wah of the Salaf, even if they claim that they are upon the haqq and Salafiyyah! Their claim is a lie and rejected.
So here are the important questions at hand:
1. Did Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (died 204H, rahimahullaah) praise an innovator?
2. Did the Salaf and the illustrious Imaams of the past narrate hadeeth from the innovators?
3. Is the acceptability of an innovator in a chain of narration of a hadeeth necessitate that we can take knowledge from the People of Bid’ah, praise them and direct people to them?
4. Is it possible that an Imaam of the Salaf and a Scholar of hadeeth would differ upon the trustworthiness of a narrator, whether he be from ahlus-Sunnah or ahlul-Bid’ah?
Please, dear reader, do not forget Abu Usamah’s oft-repeated claim that the brothers at the Maktabah as-Salafiyyah are ignorant, and they haven’t studied, they cannot recite the Book of Allaah, and they have a corrupted Manhaj – again all to blind the audience into thinking that he himself is the purveyor of insight and wisdom. The narcissist attacks those around him because “he has an elevated sense of self-worth leading an individual to value himself as inherently better than others but at the same time having a fragile self-esteem which cannot handle criticism” – so the trick is: “let me attack the knowledge-base of my critics and thus elevate my own standing in the eyes of the youth. Then I can fill their minds with whatever Manhaj I want.”
Knowing The Principles Is A Protection From Misguidance
So before dealing with the position of ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimhullaah) towards Ibraheem bin Abee Yahyah, and thus expose yet another treacherous deviation from the Manhaj of Abu Usaamah that is rooted in both his ignorance of the usool and his diesire of opposition to the Salafi Manhaj, you should know that there are conditions that the Scholars of Hadeeth have laid down for the taking of the ahadeeth and narrations that were preserved by the people of bid’ah. So the immediate question that arises is:
Why would the Scholars accept the narrations of the innovators whilst collecting the authentic ahadeeth of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam)?
Imaam adh-Dhahabee stated in al-Meezaan al-I’tidaal in his biography of Abaan bin Taghlab:
“Bid’ah is of two kinds: (1) The lesser bid’ah, like the extremism of at-Tashayyu’ (giving precedence to ‘Alee over ‘Uthmaan without cursing any of the others – may Allaah be pleased with them all) or the Tashayyu’ without going to extremes and without falsehood or misinterpretation, and this was the condition of many amongst the Taabi’een – alongside this [deviation] they were religious, pious and truthful. So if the narrations of these individuals were rejected, then a body of the Prophetic narrations would have been lost. And the [inherent] corruption of this is clear. (2) Then there is the greater bid’ah such as the complete Rafd (those shi’ah who curse the companions and declare them to be unbelievers and liars) and they are extreme in that – they attack Abu Bakr and Umar (radhi Allaahu ‘anhumaa), and they call to that – then this group is not depended upon, and they have no honour!” He goes on to say: “Rather lying is their hallmark – deception and hypocrisy is their garment – so how is one to accept the narrations of one who’s condition is such? Never and by no means!”
So the Salaf would look into the condition of the innovator, his bid’ah, whether he is caller to it or not, his trustworthiness, his truthfulness, the precision of his memory or his writing, and whether his narration revolves around his innovation. And if his narration revolved around his bid’ah, the Scholars of hadeeth would show great caution. Abu Haatim Ibn Hibbaan (died 354H, rahimahullaah) stated in Kitaab al-Majrooheen minal-Muhadditheen:
I heard Abdullaah bin Alee al-Jabbulee in Jabbul saying: I heard Muhammad bin Ahmad bin al-Junaid ad-Diqaaq saying: I heard Abdullaah bin Yazeed al-Muqree saying: That a man from ahlul-Bid’ah who recanted from his bid’ah said: “Investigate these hadeeth, from whom take them, for indeed if we took to an opinion we would invent a hadeeth to support it.”
So the Muhadditheen, the Imaams of Hadeeth, the Imaams of the Salaf would judge the suitability of an innovator in narrating (and may consider him truthful) yet they would still criticise his innovation and warn from him. All this for the preservation of the Prophetic ahaadeeth, just as Abaan bin Taghlab (rahimahullaah) has mentioned above. One the great scholars of our time, Shaikh Zaid bin Muhammad al-Madkhalee (rahimahullaah) stated in al-Ajwibatul-Athariyyah (pp. 73-76):
“Some of the People of Knowledge made an exception [for ahlul-Bid’ah] in the arena of narrating – making it permissible to narrate from the innovator who was not a caller to his innovation, and would not narrate something that would give strength to his innovation. And connected to this is taking knowledge from an innovator who does not call to his innovation, and does not narrate anything that gives strength to his innovation – and that if the student of knowledge is in critical or dire need, and that the student of knowledge cannot find anyone from the righteous, pious Scholars, then he may take his knowledge [due to necessity and the absence of Scholars].
As for your question regarding ahlul-Bid’ah of these times, then from them are the people of blameworthy hizbiyyah, such as the Khawaarij for instance, then the stance towards them is [just] like the stance that was taken against the ahlul-Bid’ah of old or not? Then the answer is that the ruling upon the People of Desires is one and the same in every era and every place. And the position of ahlus-Sunnah towards them, likewise is one and the same even if some types of innovations are less in corruption than others – one does not become lax in anything from these affairs; all innovations are at war with the Sunnah – and connected [to these innovations] are very dangerous necessities that we have already discussed.”
Alhamdulillaah, here in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, India, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, the Gulf, North Africa, the Caribbean – in these places, we have Salafis, Ulamah who visit, and students of knowledge always present, so as Shaikh Rabee’ has stated on many occasions, ahlus-Sunnah are not in need of the innovators.
So, the point being, some of the Salaf would narrate hadeeth from the Mubtadi’ah in preservation of the Deen.
The Scholars would accept the Narrations of Ahlul-Bid’ah for the Preservation of the Hadeeth – But they would Disparage and Refute them for their Innovations!
Nu’aym bin Hammad (died 239H) stated:
It was said to Ibn al-Mubaarak (died 181H): “Why do you narrate from Sa’eed and Hishaam ad-Dastawaa’ee whilst you abandoned the hadeeth of ‘Amr bin ‘Ubaid, yet they all share the same view [in innovation]? He replied: “Amr bin ‘Ubaid used to invite others to his views, he made apparent his da’wah whilst the other two would remain silent.” (Mizaan al-I’tidaal 3/275)
This ‘Amr bin ‘Ubaid was one of the callers to the ideas of the Mu’tazilah. Ibn ‘Iliyyah said:
“The first person to speak with the bid’ah of al-I’tizaal was Waasil al-Ghazaal, and ‘Amr bin ‘Ubaid joined him in that and became amazed with him – so he married his sister to him. He said to her: I have married you to a man who is worthy of being the Caliph.” (Meezaan al-I’tidaal 3/275)
Nu’aim bin Hammaad (d. 239H):
“I heard Mu’aadh bin Mu’aadh raising his voice in the Masjid of Basrah – he was saying to Yahyah al-Qattaan: Do you not fear Allaah! You narrate from ‘Amr bin ‘Ubaid and I have heard him saying: If this [Soorah], “Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab and perish he..” (Soorah al-Masad) was in the Preserved Tablet, then it is still not for Allaah a proof upon the servants.” (Meezaan al-I’tidaal 3/276)
This shows the precision, honesty, integrity and the Salafiyyah of the those great Scholars, they would not merely speak about the trustworthiness of a narrator, they would mention his bid’ah and warn against it. Likewise they would advise each other and forbid each other from falling into catastrophes – it is for this reason that Mu’aadh bin Mu’aadh raised his voice in the Masjid of Basrah and he said to Yahyah al-Qattaan: “Do you not fear Allaah! You narrate from ‘Amr bin ‘Ubaid!”. So the scholars would correct each other – and not allows errors to remain. This noble characteristic of forbidding evil disappears when the Scholars die, or when the youth pay no heed to them. Abdullaah bin Mas’ood (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu) said:
“So when the Ulamah disappear, the people become as one level, so they will no longer command the good, nor forbid the evil, and at that point they will be destroyed.” (Sunan ad-Daarimee, 194)
Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Hadramee said:
I asked Ibn Ma’een (rahimahullaah) about ‘Amr bin ‘Ubaid, so he said: “His hadeeth narrations are not to be penned down!” I asked him: Because he used to lie? He responded: “He was a caller to his [innovated] religion.” So I asked him: So why do you regard Qataadah to be trustworthy, and likewise Ibn Abee Aroobah and Salaam bin Miskeen? He answered: “They were truthful in their narrations, and they would not call others to their bid’ah.” (Meezaan al-I’tidaal 3/277)
So this was the position of Ibn Qutaibah, Ibn al-Mubaarak, and Yahyah bin Ma’een and most of the Muhadditheen regarding narrating hadeeth of ahlul-Bid’ah. However alongside this it was known that others such as al-Bukhaaree would at times narrate even from callers to bid’ah who’s truthfulness was established – yet alongside that they would mention the fact that they were innovators. An example of this is al-Bukhaaree narrating from ‘Imraan bin Hitaan, who was a caller to the madhhab of the Khawaarij. Also ‘Ibaad bin Ya’qoob ar-Rawaajinee al-Koofee – who was a well-known Raafidee, but he was considered truthful (sudooq). Abu Haatim considered him to be trustworthy, and if Ibn Khuzaimah would report from him, he would say: “Narrated to us someone who is trustworthy in narrating but blameworthy in his opinions (i.e. a person of bid’ah).” And al-Bukhaaree narrated only one connected hadeeth from him in the Chapter of Tawheed. (See Hadiyy as-Saaree p. 412, Diraasah fil-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, p. 115) So, look at how the Salaf would make clear the innovations of the narrators, warn against them and forbid their evil.
These Imaams would show the utmost honesty and transparency towards the narrators and the Imaams, they would present their chains of narration and the hadeeth to the most skilled in the field of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel. Imaam al-Awzaa’ee (died 157H), who was from great Imaams of the Salaf said:
“We would hear a hadeeth and then present it to our scholars just as one presents a counterfeit dirham to a teller – so what they accepted, we accepted and what they rejected, we rejected.” (al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel 2/21)
Even though this great Scholar is an Imaam of the Sunnah – and love of him is a sign of a person’s Sunnah, and hatred of him is a sign of a person’s bid’ah and heresy – Adh-Dhahabee said after first citing the statement of Imaam Ahmad wherein he said about al-Awzaa’ee: “He is weak in hadeeth.” So adh-Dhahabee:
“He intends that the ahaadeeth of al-Awzaa’ee are weak, due to the fact that he relied on disconnected chains and mursal narrations of the people of Shaam – and this is the cause of the weakness – and not because the Imaam is himself weak [in his station].”
(Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa, 7/112)
Al-Bayhaqee said: “Ahmad intended that al-Awzaa’ee is not relied on in narrations; and not that he himself was weak in narrating.” So al-Awzaa’ee was an Imaam in his own right however in certain issues he relied on ahaadeeth that were disconnected.
(Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb 6/242)
So this is clear – that even if an Imaam of ahlus-Sunnah was mistaken, they would correct him, but maintain his honour. As for ahlul-Bid’ah, then even if he was truthful, they would expose his innovations and warn the people from that, and not accord upon them any honour. So where now do we place Abu Usamah, Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, Yusuf al-Qardaawee, Zakir Naik, Al-Ma’rabee, Bilal Philips, Shadeed Muhammad and Abu Muslimah? Are they to be honoured and respected? Defended and praised? Do these deserve the position of Ahmad bin Hanbal towards al-Awzaa’ee or the position of Mu’aadh bin Mu’aah towards ‘Amr bin ‘Ubaid?
So these Imaams in their desire and necessity to preserve the ahaadeeth of Allaah’s Messenger (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam), they would closely examine and scrutinise the narrators, to make sure of their reliability, precision and trustworthiness in narrating. At the same time, they would expose the bid’ah of the innovators, warn against them and command the people to abandon them. Their desire was the preservation of the Deen and the ahadeeth of the Prophet (salallaahu alaihi wassallam). They feared not the blame of the blamers, if they knew someone to be an innovator they would not hide his innovation. If someone’s innovation was hidden from one scholar, it would not be hidden from another.
So we wonder, what is it that Abu Usamah saw from deficiencies and shortcomings in Shaikh Rabee’ (hafidhahullaah) that led him to belittle him and state that he saw things in Shaikh Rabee’ that prevent him from taking from him in particular affairs?! – till this day we have not seen his proofs, and even his so-called retraction he said: “no one asked me what I saw” – so what did you see Abu Usamah in this Imaam of deficiency that prevented you from him? This also brings us nicely to the wanton deceit and treachery of Abu Usamah and his fraud upon Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullaah). He stated that ash-Shaafi’ee praised and spoke well of Ibraaheem Ibn Abee Yahyah, so since he spoke good of this shaikh, then why criticise Adnan Abdul-Qaadir (and by extension Abu Usamah) for speaking good of his shaikh and teacher Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and Abdullaah as-Sabt.
There is no doubt that this a mighty and deceptive falsehood that must be addressed It is a corrupt principle of Abu Usamah wherein he claims that the Salaf would praise ahlul-Bid’ah in absolute terms, and they would not be criticised by their peers – after all who would dare criticise Imaam ash-Shaaf’ee, right? And if you are not going to criticise Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee for [supposedly] praising a Raafidee Shi’ee, Jahmee, Mu’tazilee, then why criticise Abu Usamah for praising someone whose corruption is lesser than that?
We present here some of the sayings of Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee and other scholars concerning this Ibraaheem Ibn Abee Yahyah (who Abu Usamah claims was praised by ash-Shaafi’ee) – and remember O Sunni, what we have already quoted regarding the great Imaams of hadeeth, that they would narrate the Prophetic hadeeth after such scrutiny (that is unheard of in any other sphere of knowledge) from a person of innovation, and expose his bid’ah and warn from him in his Religion. So this Ibraheem ibn Abee Yahyah, the one that Abu Usamah tries to use as a proof to show that one can praise ahlul-Bid’ah, and not criticise each other regarding his innovation:
- Ibn Ma’een said about him: “Kadhdhaab Raafidee! (A lying Shi’ite).”
- Ar-Rabee’ said: Ash-Shaafi’ee said about him: “Ibraheem Ibn Abee Yahyah was a Qadaree.” So it was said to ar-Rabee’: “So why did ash-Shaafi’ee narrate from him?” So ar-Rabee’ said that ash-Shaafi’ee used to say: “It was more beloved to Ibraheem that he should fall from a height than to lie. So he was thiqah (trustworthy) in hadeeth.”
(Tahdheeb al-Kamaal 2/188, al-Kaamil 1/218, as-Siyar 8/450)
So ash-Shaafi’ee did not deny the innovations of Ibraaheem bin Abee Yahyah, rather he held that he was a Qadaree (one who denied the Pre-Decree), but that he was truthful when it came to the hadeeth of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam) – which is more than what can be said for Abu Usamah al-Kadhdhaab, who doesn’t care how much he has to lie to satisfy his narcissistic tendencies. So ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullaah) made clear the innovation of Ibn Abee Yahyah, alhamdulillaah. So why did Abu Usamah not make clear these additional words from ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullaah)? Answer: because Abu Usamah was looking for something to support his innovated principle. But it gets worse, look what else ash-Shaafi’ee and others said about this Ibraheem Ibn Abee Yahyah:
- Ash-Shaafi’ee said: “Ibn Abee Yahyah was an idiot, a fool, unable [even] to perform sexual intercourse.”
- Maalik was asked: “Was Ibn Abee Yahyah thiqah (trustworthy in narrating hadeeth)?”, he replied: “No, and nor was he trustworthy in his Religion.”
- Ahmad bin Hanbal said: “He was a Qadaree, Mu’tazilee and Jahmee – all the calamities were in him.”
- Al-Bukhaaree said about him: “A Jahmee, Ibn al-Mubaarak and the people abandoned him – he used have the opinions of the Qadarees.”
- Yahyah bin Ma’een said: “A liar in all that he narrates.”
- Abu Dawood and Ibn Ma’een said about him: “Raafidee Kadhdhaab!”
- Abu Hammaam as-Sukoonee said: “I heard Ibn Abee Yahyah cursing the some of the Salaf.”
(Tadhkiratul-Huffaadh 1/246, Tahdheeb al-Kamaal 2/188, al-Kaamil 1/218, as-Siyar 8/450)
So from this one can see that though Shaafi’ee affirmed his bid’ah and foolishness – he nevertheless (in several citations from ash-Shaafi’ee) held him to be truthful. And we have already discussed above that the Imaams of hadeeth would accept the narrations of the mubtadi’ah (with conditions) whilst recognising and warning from their innovations.
This is a matter that Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah points out too, that the Imaams of the Sunnah would take narrations from those upon bid’ah but who were truthful nevertheless in order to prevent the greater of two evils, which is to prevent crucial and vital knowledge from being lost through lack of continued transmission (refer to Majmu’ al-Fatawaa 28/210-213). So ash-Shaafi’ee was no different in that regard. Imaam adh-Dhahabee mentions in Tadhkiratul-Huffaadh (1/246) that “a group [of scholars] held him (Ibraaheem bin Abi Yahyaa) to be weak, even if with ash-Shaafi’ee he was trustworthy.” However ash-Shaafi’ee himself said about him: “He was a Qadaree.” i.e. that Ibraheem Ibn Abee Yahyah is truthful but he is an innovating Qadaree – so where has the Amaanah ‘Ilmiyyah (being honest in conveying knowledge) disappeared to now, O Abaa Usamah? Or is that trust in conveying only reserved for when you’re translating the praises of the innovators and sharing platforms with them? This is pure and utter treachery. Abu Usamah needs to humble himself, make tawbah, feel regret and remorse, and truly fear Allaah (the Most High, the One who is severe in retribution), rectify his affair, make a pure and sincere tawbah and bayaan for his innovations and crimes against the Salafi Da’wah and its people before Allaah take his soul and he is buried in the cold ground. And we seek refuge in Allaah from the wickedness of Abee Usamah – We seek from Allaah security and safety in our Deen, we ask the Most Merciful not to put us to trial with this man.
Abu Usaamah deceived his audience and did gross injustice to Imaam al-Shaaf’iee by repeatedly stating in his lecture that “ash-Shaaf’iee used to praise him…” and hiding the actual reality of the situation.
So what is it that Abu Usamah wishes to derive from his ascription to ash-Shaafi’ee?
Well, firstly that if he (Abu Usamah) praises an innovator, then don’t criticise him, because some of the Salaf praised innovators. The answer to this has already been answered above in the reply to those who use the speech of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin in praise of al-Ma’rabee – that is it is possible that a scholar does not know the deviations of a person so he withholds from criticising or even continues praising him. But the one who knows is a proof over the one who does not, and the detailed Jarh takes precedence over the general praise, as is well known.
The second direction that Abu Usamah is coming from has also been mentioned above, and that is that he sees deviations in the ‘aqeedah as one sees differing in matters of [tolerated] ijtihaad, and the speech of Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah has already preceded, that describes Abu Usamah precisely.
The third angle of Abu Usaamah is that he truly believes that anyone can learn from innovators and sit in their circles, and that is why you see him constantly alongside them and praising them, and encouraging others with learning from them – and this position of his is in complete opposition to the ijmaa’ (complete concesus) of the Salaf and their Scholars.
Misunderstanding Al-Mawaazanah – Completely and Utterly
Regarding Ya’qoob bin Shaibah (died 262H) who was present in the time of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241H). The great Imaam adh-Dhahabee (d. 748H, rahimahullaah) stated in Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa about him: “The great haafidh, al-‘Allaamah, ath-thiqah (trustworthy).” Ahmad bin Kaamil al-Qaadee said: “Ya’qoob bin Shaibah was from the major companions of Ahmad bin al-Mu’adhdhal and al-Haarith bin Miskeen – was was a leading Faqeeh – but he withheld in the issue of the Qur’aan (by refusing to say, ‘it is not created’).” Imaam adh-Dhahabee (rahimahullaah):
“I say: He took his position of withholding in the Qur’aan from his Shaikh, the well-known Ahmad previously mentioned (i.e. bin al-Mu’adhdhal) – and likewise those who also withheld were Mus’ab az-Zubairee, Ishaaq bin Abee Israa’eel and a group – so nearly a thousand Imaams opposed them! Rather all the rest of the Imaams of the Salaf as well as the later Imaams upon the issue of them not rejecting that the Qur’aan is created, and their refusal to declare the Jahmiyyah to be unbelievers! We ask Allaah for safety in our Religion.”
So how is one to understand these words of adh-Dhahabee (rahimahullaah) whereby he would mention the fact that an individual was an Aalim, Haafidh and Trustworthy (thiqah) and yet mention his innovations and misguidance?
Respected intelligent reader, rather than accepting the ignorance-filled ranting of this innovating liar Abu Usamah, let us quote the Imaam, Muhaddith and Mujaddid of this era, Shaikhul-Islaam Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) regarding these types of biographical accounts of the innovators:
“What is occurring now amidst the debates between many individuals regarding what has been called, or concerning this new bid’ah of “al-Muwaazanah” (counterbalancing between the good and bad points) with respect to criticising men.
I say: Criticism either occurs in the biography of an individual which is a “historical” biography in which case it is necessary to mention what is both good and bad with respect to the individual. However, when the intent behind the biographical detail of an individual is to warn the Muslims, and especially the general folk who do not have any knowledge pertaining to men and their defects – in fact it might even be the case that (this individual who is being warned against) might have a good reputation with the common folk. However, he is concealing an evil aqidah or evil habits, yet the common folk do not know any of this about this man – then in this particular situation, this innovation, which has been given the title of, “al-Muwaazanah” these days is not employed. This is because the intent here is to give advice (to the Muslims) and the intent is not to give comprehensive and exhaustive biographical details..”
Clearly Imaam adh-Dhahabee is giving a biographical account of the likes of Ya’qoob bin Shaibah and Ibraheem bin Abee Yahyah, as is known by anyone who has studied even the basics of the Sciences of Hadeeth and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel! Will you contend with that Abu Usamah? Once again, you see this man’s ignorance in the Deen and his deviant designs upon the youth.
Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) continues to say in the same recording:
However, what is important concerning this question is that at the end of this answer, I should say: Certainly, those who have innovated the bid’ah of “al-Muwaazanah”, no doubt they oppose the Book and they oppose the Sunnah, both the Sunnah of speech and that of action, and they oppose the manhaj of the Salaf us-Saalih.
Then Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) went on to say later in that same conversation:
“In short, I say: Certainly, the carrier of the flag of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel today, in the current times – and in truth – is our brother, Doctor Rabee’. And as for those who refute him, then they do not do so on the basis of knowledge ever.”
(Cassette: “Man Haamil Raayah al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel Fil-Asr al-Haadir”, SalafiPublications.com)
So rather than taking the principles of hadeeth and Jarh wa Ta’deel from the Imaams of the Sunnah, Abu Usamah refers affairs back to his own desires. Who is the Scholar that Shaikh Al-Albaanee has praised in this field O Aba Usamah? It is the same Shaikh Rabee’ whom you belittle, and have abandoned, and you have taken as you friends and allies the innovators – and all of this has resulted in the corruption of your Manhaj.
The question to Abu Usaamah that we raised at the beginning: do the errors of others justify your blind following? If the evidence comes to you, is it still permissible to blindly follow? Is it allowed to call others to your blind-following as you have done here? Is it permissible for you to open your ignorant mouth and rant on about things that you have no knowledge of? These words of Abu Uwais Abdullaah Ahmad Alee (rahimahullaah) sum up the problem with Abu Usaamah.
From this, the reader will have truly understood the shallowness of Abu Usaamah’s knowledge (whilst accusing others of others of ignorance), his willingness to distort history, facts, situations and contexts regarding the people of knowledge in order to support and utilize Ikhwaani principles that his da’wah is clearly founded upon.
For more refutations of this despicable soul, refer to: These Articles and Videos
We ask Allaah for firmness on the truth. May He protect us from the wicked callers to bid’ah who stand at the gates of the Hellfire.
All praise is due to Allaah, who created us and then showed us guidance.