How does the one who called to misguidance and bid’ah rectify? By Imām Ibnul-Qayyim and Imām Ibn Qudāmah.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Making Tawbah from Bid’ah and Deviation:

Imām Ibnul-Qayyim (d. 752H, رحمه الله) said in ‘Uddatus-Sābirīn (93-94):

“From the conditions of repentance of the caller to bid’ah is that he makes clear that which he used to call to from innovation and misguidance – and that guidance is its opposite just as Allāh has laid down the conditions of repentance for the People of the Book whose sin was concealing that which Allāh had revealed of clarification and guidance so as to misguide the people. So they had to rectify the deeds in their souls, and to clarify to the people that which they concealed from them…”

The scholars sternly refuted the saying of Abul-Hasan Al-Ma’ribī who claimed no further refutation should be made upon the one who said “I have recanted.” They responded: “This is a general statement in the  presence of detailed corruption!” Meaning: what is it that he has recanted from? Saying, “I have recanted” is not enough unless there is detail to the retraction. The scholars said: “And has Abul-Hasan in this audio refuted and nullified his mistakes in detail? No he has not – not at all.” Then we mention here the story of the refutation of Imām Muwaffiqud-Dīn Ibn Qudāmah (d.620H رحمه الله, the author Al-Mughnī in fiqh and Lum’atul-I’tiqād in ‘aqīdah) against Abul-Wafā Ibn ‘Aqīl. Ibn Qudāmah (رحمه الله) said:

“I looked into the book Al-Fadīhah (The Disgrace) of Ibn ‘Aqīl which he has entitled An-Nasīhah (The Advice) and I considered that which it contains of ugly innovations and hideous oppositions against the clear unobstructed correct path [of Sunnah] and I found it to be a scandalous disgrace upon the one who uttered it. And due to it Allaah exposed the corruption that he had concealed. And had he not repented to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, and freed himself, recanted and returned back from that, and had he not sought Allāh’s forgiveness from all of that which he had said of innovations, and that which he had written with his own hand, or that which he had authored or that which was ascribed to him, we would have counted him amongst the heretics, and renegade innovators.”

Thereafter Ibn Qudāmah (رحمه الله) brought a connected chain of narration wherein he quoted Ibn ‘Aqīl as having said:

“I free myself before Allaah, the Most High, from the madh’habs of the innovators: Al-I’tizāl (the beliefs of the Mu’tazilah) and from accompanying their leaders, and from praising their people and from invoking mercy upon their forefathers..”

So we say: “So Abul-Hasan stated: ‘Why is not my rectification accepted?’ I say: Not until you have done what Abul-Wafā Ibn ‘Aqīl did! Not until you have nullified these doubts you brought, word by word! Then after that we will be with you. Alongside that we permit ourselves and those who come after us who are not aware of our speech or your speech to refute these ugly and outrageous sayings that are present in your audios so that no one is deceived by them in accordance to what is needed in their time.”


An illustration of a deceitful trickster:

Abdur-Rahman Hassan humiliated by takfeerees

So, Abdul-Rahmān Hassan: We know you are ignorant of the Salafi Manhaj just as the Hajāwirah who support you; they would memorise from their “shaikh”, Yahyā Al-Haddādī, texts and quotes yet not understand what they were memorising. They became amazed with themselves just as you have become amazed with yourself. You, and your hizb may well ask just as Al-Ma’ribī asked: “Why is my recantation not accepted?” Then we reply: “Not until you have done what Ibn ‘Aqīl did. Not until you have nullified these doubts you brought, word by word!” This is our Salafiyyah.

Abdur-Rahman Hassan committed many wrongs out of ignorance, self-amazement, misguidance and sheer recklessness. So he must recant in detail for his errors in consideration of the following:

1. He is ignorant of the details of the Salafi Manhaj and ‘Aqīdah yet he put himself forward to debate a takfīrī devil publicly on camera. This said takfīrī who has declared the kings of Saudi Arabia and the Salafi scholars to be unbelievers and apostates.
2. Throughout this debate Abdur-Rahmān is constantly seen “bootlicking” this takfīrī with lavish praises such that one is left in a state of bewilderment! This is a clear contradiction to Islām.
3. He refers to this takfīrī as “our shaikh…” throughout and admits benefitting from him, thus inviting others to benefit from him. Revering of a khārijī, pro-terrorist, pro-ISIS innovator opposes the Salafi Manhaj by the Revelation and ijmā’. He took this innovator as his shaikh?!
4. After Abu Khadeejah corrected him and refuted him [without naming him], Abdur-Rahmaan responded with lies and falsehood [that he now recognises] yet has offered no apology to Abu Khadeejah for falsely accusing him. So he must name the video, remove it and make tawbah. He must apologise for making that lengthy worthless “refutation”. None of this has been done to-date.
5. He attacked Dārus-Sunnah and Salafi Publications and has still not retracted or apologised for the slander. Why?
6. His claim (or that of his hizb) that Shaikh Rabī’ praised the Khawārij when he knows full well that Shaikh Rabī’ was merely stating that the Khawārij of today are worse than the Khawārij of old in ‘aqeedah. So this accusation is a slur upon the honour of this major scholar. In this, he has followed the misguided hizbīs around him who have reviled Shaikh Rabī’ for several years due to their fanaticism for Alī Hasan Al-Halabī, Al-Hajūrī, Al-Ma’ribī and other deviants. Just look to his companionship.
7. He should thank Abu Khadeejah, Abdulilaah Lahmami, Salafi Publications and Dārus-Sunnah by name after his previous criticism of them because they were the ones who corrected him whilst his own hizb stood by for a year and patted his arrogant back and crippled him.
8. In his eagerness to refute Ahlus-Sunnah who repudiated his falsehood, he invented a lie against the Messenger (salallahu `alaihi wassallam) and his Companions for which he had no Salaf, no ‘Ālim and no sound reasoning except to justify his praise of ahlul-bid’ah.
9. Instead of accepting the truth and displaying humility after the scholars corrected him, he started “phoning around” for a “fatwa”, fishing in murky waters to oppose the clearcut statements of Shaikh Al-Fawzān, Shaikh Al-Luhaydhān, Shaikh Abdur-Rahmān Muhiyud-Dīn, Shaikh Abdullāh An-Najmī, and others. This is a disrespect to the scholars further illustrating his conniving, self-conceited character.
10. He must repent from his bid’ah wherein he insisted that it was valid to praise ahlul-bid’ah for the ‘good’ that is with them of worship, recital of the Qu’ran and so on (the bid`ah of al-Muwāzanah). He ascribed this praise of ahlul-bid’ah to Allāh’s Messenger (عليه الصلاة و السلام) and his Companions, thereby ascribing it to Islām. He persisted in this even after being refuted by Abu Khadeejah and Abdulilāh Lahmāmī. This is an innovation that opposes the texts and ijmā’.

For these oppositions, he must repent, recant and clarify in accordance to the Salafi Manhaj, not deliver a deceitful lecture [as he has done] on the “virtues of returning to the truth” for which his hizb have patted him on the back – the same hizb who patted him on the back for his original crime – and the same hizb who will no doubt pat him on his back regardless of his crimes until he becomes too much of a liability for them!

Then there is the issue of his hizbiyyah which still flows through him in torrents due to his attachment to Al-Halabī, Al-Huwainī, the Hajāwirah, etc. That will require some serious sincerity. May Allāh guide him or break him.

Discover more from Abu Khadeejah : أبو خديجة

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.