Al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel and the Corrupt Principles of Abu Usamah Khalifah Part 2

Understanding Proofs and Evidences | Al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel

And The Corrupted Foundations of
Abu Usamah Khalifah Of Green Lane Mosque

Abu Usamah displays his treachery in the issue of the innovator Abul-Hasan al-Ma’rabee and our Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad (hafidhahullaah).

Over the years, lying, arrogance, stubbornness and a wilful desire to oppose the haqq have become the hallmarks of Abu Usamah’s character. As much as people and Scholars have tried to advise, counsel and help this individual, he just will not relent! There is a clear underlying disorder, and it has to be psychological and pathological. It has been said: “The symptoms of a Narcissistic personality disorder comprise 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. These types of people will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. But more than this, Abu Usamah is also arrogant, and also ignorant of the principles of Salafiyyah. What a sick combination of affairs.

A man who makes blunders of the likes of Abu Usamah’s, should never be given the microphone – he is always an accident waiting to happen. Ignorant young brothers are fooled by his coarse street-speak and think he’s “cool”. They don’t know the ‘Aqeedah nor the Manhaj so cannot distinguish a fool from a scholar, but a student of knowledge sees through him, alhamdulillaah. He sits in a small back street Mosque with no more than a handful of youths in front of him – his speech is filled with bitterness and personal attacks – he makes hate-filled videos, and then broadcasts it on the net. At the same time he lies out of his back teeth, “This is not a refutation, this is not a clarification…”

But instead of us getting side-tracked by his attacks upon those who refuted his innovations, let us stick to the original issue with Abu Usamah:

Question to Allaamah Ahmad an-Najmee: “O Shaykh Ahmad we have with us in America a man called Abu Usaamah who is considered to be from the Du’aat, he aids and supports Abul-Hasan and he calls some noble Salafi brothers ghulaat (extremists), muqallidah (blind followers),and muhqiboon (the people whose religion is the religion of the one they blindly follow), so what is the legislated position from this man and how should we deal with him?

The noble Scholar (rahimahullaah) answered:

موقفكم منه كموقفكم من أهل البدعة , أعرض عنه و اتركه

“Your position with him is the same as your position with the People of Innovation. Turn away from him and abandon him.

When Abu Usaamah was abandoned, as all deviants pretending to have aql ought to be, it was only a short while later that he turned up on the shores and green pastures of Britain to play the field, just as he had been playing with communities in the US. This history and reality is hidden to many of those who are delighted to hear Abu Usamah malign those who adhere to and value the advice, direction and guidance of Scholars who advise with clinging to the Sunnah and abandoning innovation.

Using the General Praise of a Scholar in the Presence of Detailed Disparagements Of Many Others Is Not A Proof in the Religion.

From the examples from the Salaf which have preceded in this thread, in the post above, anyone with basic studies in the Manhaj can see that the praise of scholar does not take precedence over disparagement based upon detailed, established evidences. Conversely, we affirm the principle that a general and vague criticism of a well-known Salafi, who is known for his Salafiyyah is not accepted except with detailed evidences (i.e. citations of words, statements, actions) showing his deviation.

Abu Usamah opposes both of these Salafi principles over and over again in his rants. On the one hand he rejects the detailed evidences for the disparagement of many Scholars against innovators like al-Ma’ribee, using all sorts of childish rants and games, and on the other hand he makes use of the speech of Shaikhs: Wasi’ullaah, al-Hajooree and ar-Radaadee against Salafi Publications which comprise nothing more than allegations without any actual evidence.Furthermore, he fails in his treachery to mention that both al-Hajooree and ar-Radaadee have previously declared Green Lane to be hizbees! – more on that in a later article, inshaa’Allaah.

As for the point concerning Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, hafidhahullaah and his stance concerning Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee and likewise the more detailed and evidence-based stance of Shaikh Rabee’ bin Haadee al-Madkhalee (hafidhahullaah), and numerous other Scholars (from Madinah, Kuwait and Yemen), then the following important comments can be made as well as important principles established:

1. Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin is a scholar of the Sunnah and Salafiyyah. An individual who has strived for many years teaching the Sunnah of our Messenger, ‘alayhi salaatu was-salaam, to the Ummah. We make du’aa for him and speak good of him as do the rest of the Scholars. But a scholar’s opinion is accepted only if it agrees with the truth, and if it opposes the evidences then we do not accept it. Abu Usamah, in contradiction to this, follows what his desires agree with and rejects that which his desires don’t agree with – proofs, evidences, usool and ‘aqeedah are of little importance to this person of desires.

2. We recognise that that there is no individual in this Ummah, other than the Messenger of Allaah, ‘alayhi salaatu was-salaamthat can encompass every aspect of completion in every field of knowledge that Allaah has revealed. Bearing this in mind, any individual can err. The less knowledge you have of the legislation, the more you err. The more Shar’eeknowledge you have, the less you err. The Messenger of Allaah, ‘alayhi salaatu was-salaam, mentioned in a hadeeth,

“Idhaa hakama Haakimu, fajtahada, fa asaaba falahu ajraan. Wa idha hakama fa akhta’a, falahu ajrun waahid” – meaning – “When a judge makes a judgement and he makes ijtihaad and he is correct, he gets two rewards. And if he judges and is incorrect, he receives a single reward” (Hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah reported by Bukhaaree and Muslim).

And this reward is for the ‘ulamah of Ahlus-Sunnah. So if Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is correct, for him there is two rewards, if he is incorrect, for him there is one reward (inshaa’Allaah), and the same for Shaikh Rabee’ bin Haadee.

But the one who follows the errors of the scholars after knowing the truth, then he is sinful. Just the Ash’aree taking the ta’weel of Ibn Hajr and an-Nawawee (in certain issues of the Attributes of Allaah), or following Abu Haneefah in the issue of eemaan, after the error of that has been made abundantly and sufficiently clear.

So if one knows the truth of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and his innovations, and Abul-Hasan and his innovations and Ihyaa Turaath and their innovations (all of which are the innovations of Ikhwaan brought to a Salafi audience in deceptive ways) and knows the knowledge-based refutations, then he is a sinful in persisting upon supporting them and aiding them, because Allaah has stated, “And do not aid one another upon sin and transgression” and the Messenger (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam) said: “The curse of Allaah is upon the one who innovates and the one who accommodates the innovator.” Worst still is this ignoramus Abu Usamah who continues to defend people of innovation after knowing the truth, because he just cannot keep his mouth shut about those his heart inclines towards – even if it means twisting the clear refutations of Allaamah al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) against Turaath and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and convincing the youth sitting in front of him that they are tazkiyaat!

How dare this Khadhdhaab Abu Usamah use the example of Ibraaheem bin Abee Yahyah (the Jahmee, Mu’tazilee, Raafidee) to support his false position and his corrupted usool – he lied and deceived the audience concerning the position of Imaam ash-Shaaf’ee (d. 204H) towards Ibraaheem bin Abee Yahyah and tried to use it to defend the corruption of his beloved Turaathee Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir! We will expose this deception in the next post inshaa’Allaah.

3. Abu Usamah is in essence saying, “I will follow the praise of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin regardless of evidences and proofs” because he is a great Scholar, and this great scholar cannot be wrong! The Salaf have refuted this doubt which basically states, “Every mujtahid is correct” (Kullu mujtahid museeb) and that whichever opinion you follow it’s fine. The Qaadi Abu Tayyib At-Tabaree said:

“[As for the statement], ‘every mujtahid is correct’, then this is Madhhab of the Mu’tazilah of Basrah, and they are the root of this bid’ah.” (see Bahrul-Muheet 6/243)

And this is the trait you see from Abu Usamah in his blind following of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin, whilst ignoring the mountain of evidence stacked against Abul-Hasan al-Ma’rabee. It is as if he is saying Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin cannot err, or that I will follow him right or wrong, or regardless because he is a Mujtahid and “every mujtahid is correct” (or more correctly: “this mujtahid agrees with my desires”), following the Madhhab of the Mu’tazilah in that. However, he doesn’t apply the same principle to the likes of Shaikh Rabee’, or Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee, Shaikh Muqbil, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee and so on. So he is a muqallid whose buffoonery seems to impress a few youths because he sprinkles it with verses and ahaadeeth (which he applies in his own way) and his own flowery speech. So don’t be deceived O youth.

4. Abu Usamah tries to capitalise on the fact that the Scholars differ with respect to rulings upon the innovators, so he (in essence is telling the audience) one may pick and choose whom to follow. But the differing that occurs between the Scholars is not a proof in the Religion – rather it is the evidences that bind us to the truth, not the differences of opinion. This is the case even with the Sahaabah (radhi Allaahu ‘annum).

Imaam Maalik stated with regard to the Sahaabah, radhi Allaahu ‘anhum:

“There is not in the differing of the Sahaabah an allowance/excuse (for others). Indeed there is only that which is wrong or right” (Jaami’ Bayaanil-‘Ilm wal-Fadlihi). And we have been ordered with that which is right and correct. And this is in agreement with the statement of Ibn Abbaas, radhi Allaahu ‘anhu, who said: “I say: ‘The Messenger said’ and you say: ‘[But] Abu Bakr and Umar said’!”

So Manhaj al-Khabeeth that Abu Usamah is propagating is clearly false. So the truth is one, either you know about Abul-Hasan al-Ma’rabee or your don’t. If you don’t know, ask those who do, rather ask those who know him best! And Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin (hafidhahullaah) clearly does not know him with the detail that Shaikh Rabee’, Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee, Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee and Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree know him. Books have written about this man’s innovations: This is just one book of 256 pages, written by the noble Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree (hafidhahullaah) in refutation of Abul-Hasan al-Ma’rabee (which he presented as a gift to al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah in 1425H):

Name:  Marabee-Radd-by-Sh-Abdullaah1.jpg<br /><br /><br />
Views: 9100<br /><br /><br />
Size:  62.5 KB Name:  Marabee-Radd-by-Sh-Abdullaah2.jpg<br /><br /><br />
Views: 9205<br /><br /><br />
Size:  113.8 KB

It is NOT permitted in our Religion to put general praise over specific detailed criticism, because that is the path of the ignorant blind-follower and it opposes the principles of the Religion. So, Abaa Usaamah, stop teaching falsehood to the youth – you are misguiding them towards those whom the Scholars have disparaged by your activities and lunatic rants. And O youth, who listen to this buffoon who sits there making you giggle, give value to your Religion, don’t follow him into misguidance and deviation. Allaah will call you to account!

5. Differing of the scholars in any affair is not a proof. Al-Haafidh Abu ‘Umar Ibn Abdil-Barr said:

“Difference of opinion is not a proof with a single one of the Fuqahaa (Jurists and Scholars) of the Ummah, except for the one who has no insight and possesses no knowledge – and he has no proof for his speech.”(Jaami’ Bayaanil-‘Ilm).

Abu Usamah openly calls people to this slogan, “my brothers the scholars differ, the scholars differ” and then he blindly follows whichever opinion suits his desires, even if it opposes the usool. So the Scholar is excused in his ijtihaad, but the miskeen follower (Abu Usamah) who persists upon falsehood (even after the truth is clarified to him) has no excuse for misguidance and misguiding others. The reader by this stage should be able to see why our scholars regard this treacherous kadhdhaab to be person of bid’ah and misguidance and why he should be abandoned by all and sundry.

As for the praise of Shaikh Wasi’ullaah for Abu Usamah, then it carries no weight in light of the proofs against Abu Usamah (and it is not hard to imagine how this man may have deceived the shaikh with lies and half-truths) – just as the praises of Shaikh Wasi’ullaah for Suhaib Hasan, Abdul-Haadee (of Green Lane) and Ihyaa Turaath carry no weight in light of the proofs that are evident and apparent. So, in reality, we are not blind-followers – the scholars who have refuted these people have done so upon evidences, clear and apparent. And if the truth be told, as Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee, Shaikh Falaah Ismaa’eel, Shaikh Ahmad as-Subay’ee, Shaikh Muhammad al-Anjaree, Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree (and others) have all stated that Shaikh Wasi’ullaah’s disparaging statements against al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah – and Abu Khadeejah and Abu Hakeem (click here to read) are based on his emotional attachment to Suhaib Hasan and Green Lane Mosque (formerly Markaz Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith UK). Further, the Shaikh has only brought vague general criticisms lacking any direct evidence – so we excuse the Shaikh and ask Allaah to grant success.

So after this, where is this elusive Jarh Mufassar, O Abaa Usaamah? Where is the proof? Where are our innovations and deviations? We have shown the Ummah your bid’ah and the mubtadi’ah you are defending, allying with and for whose sake you are loving and hating, but all you have done is shown your ignorance of the Salafi usool, your contradiction and following your desires. Mere accusations shrouded in buffoonery and street-speak is not evidence of deviation in usool, aqeedah and manhaj.

6. Even if a Scholar Errs, then clarifying the errors is an obligation. Al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab, rahimahullaah, said:

“And from the headings of sincere advice to Allaah, the Most High, and His Book and His Messenger – and this is particular to the Scholars – to refute the deviations from the Book and Sunnah… And likewise to refute the weak statements from the slips of the scholars and to make clear the proofs of the Book and Sunnah.” (Jaami’ ul-‘Uloom wal-Hikam, abridged)

A Salafi does not use the slips or mistakes of the Scholars to validate his own futile positions. Umar bin al-Khattaab (radhi Allaahu anhu) stated:

“There are three things that demolish the Religion: 1. the mistaken slip of the Scholar, 2. the argumentation of the munaafiq by utilising the Qur’aan, and 3. the Imaams of misguidance.”
(Reported by ad-Daarimee, al-Laalikaa’ee and others)

So when a scholar errs, then his error cannot be followed and used as proof to fight against that which clear and apparent from the proofs, let alone that one should say: “If you criticise me, then you are criticising the scholar, because he took that position and I follow him.” Understanding the statements of the scholars and differing that occurs between them is a broader topic that has been covered elsewhere. (You can read it here)

Anyone who looks at the proofs against Abul-Hasan, Ali Hasan, al-Maghraawee, Ihyaa Turaath, Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, and before them (from the early times) Ya’qoob bin Shaibah and al-Karabeesee – and from those in the West like Shadeed Muhammad, Abu Muslimah, Suhaib Hasan, etc., and then still takes the opinion of the one who has slipped in his ijtihaad, then he is either ignorant or a follower of desires like them. This is even more so with respect to Abu Usamah, since Shaikh Rabee’ (hafidhahullaah) himself sat with Abu Usamah, but the only thing this kadhdhaab could say afterwards was: “I saw things from Shaikh Rabee’ that prevent me from taking everything he has to say in this affair!” So what did you see, O miskeen! that you prevents you from taking the refutations of this Imaam?! Are we to believe your rant over and above what the Great Mujadideen (Revivers) of the era have said about Shaikh Rabee’ (we’ll bring these sayings in a follow-up post inshaa’Allaah)? But maybe we shouldn’t be so offended, especially since recently Abu Usamah made the noble Companion Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu) as an illustrative example for this very same remark he made about Shaikh Rabee’ and before that he called the Companion Waleed bin ‘Uqbah (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu) a faasiq and then blatantly denied having knowledge of his status as a Companion!

7. Abu Usaamah: Look at the Manhaj you are Following? The Murji’ah, The Philosophers and The Soofees!

Excusing deviation and bid’ah is not an option if one knows the truth. Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) said:

“And another group, [then] they do not know the ‘Aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah as is obligated, or they know a part of it and are ignorant regarding a part of it – and that which they know, they conceal and do not explain it to the people – and they do not forbid the bid’ah and they do not censure Ahlul-Bid’ah nor punish or subdue them. Rather they may even have disparaging remarks with respect to the Sunnah and the foundations of the Deen – not distinguishing between the speech of Ahlus-Sunnah and that of Ahlul-Bid’ah wal-Furqah – Or they accept the different madhhabs of bid’ah just as the ‘ulemah excuse each other in the issues of ijtihaad in which there is [genuine] difference. And this is the condition of many of the Murji’ah, and some of the Thinkers, the Soofees and the Philosophers” (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa Vol 12, slightly abridged).

Wallaahi! O Sunni! O one with eyes and hearts open to the truth! You know (O Salafi) that this is the reality of Abu Usamah in the words of Shaikhul-Islaam! Abu Usamah is one who:

  • hides the truth deliberately and knowingly,
  • attacks ahlus-Sunnah and their Scholars,
  • shows love and affection for ahlul-bid’ah, accommodates them and aids them,
  • he makes no distinction between haq and baatil,
  • with him truth becomes falsehood and falsehood becomes the truth,
  • he accepts the differing madhhabs of bid’ah as if they were matters of differing in ijtihaad!

As can be seen, that if a person knows the reality of an issue, then he is not excused thereafter in supporting that which is opposition to the Sunnah after the matter is made clear from the texts of the Book and Sunnah upon the Manhaj of the Salaf. As for the one who does not know, then he is informed so that he takes the correct position against those who oppose Ahlus-Sunnah and its principles and fundamentals, just as Allaah has stated, “Ask the people of knowledge, if you do not know.” Again, we repeat, you ask those who are the most knowledgeable of the details of the affair. Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin (hafidhahullaah) is NOT the most knowledgeable concerning Abul-Hasan al-Ma’rabee (or Ihyaa Turaath)! Abu Usaamah is treacherous and wicked because he knows this fact, but he still peddles his falsehood, plays with the deen and the ‘aql of others and misguides them.

Further, it is not upon us to start questioning the Jarh Mufassar (detailed refatations) of the Scholars due to the apparent silence of another! This is because the principle ‘the detailed jarh takes precedence over the ta’deel’ stands firm throughout time due to the fact that the one who brings this jarh mufassar (in this case Al-Allaamah Rabee’ bin Haadee, Ahmad an-Najmee, Zayd al-Madkhalee, Muhammad bin Haadee, Ubayd Al-Jaabiree, Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree and so on) is more knowledgeable of the affair of an individual (in this case Al-Ma’rabee) than the one who just brings a generalta’deel (praise). And the one who has knowledge is a proof over the one who does not know. Another principle for you to grasp O Abaa Usamah!

One should not feel confused or disillusioned due to not finding ijmaa’ (consensus) in the jarh of an individual. Sinceijmaa’ is not a pre-condition for accepting a jarh. Rather the guiding factor is the bringing forth of a detailed refutation, clear and detailed by one who is capable and this takes precedence over the ta’deel mujmal (general praise). And of-course those scholars who have refuted Abul-Hasan are from the experts in the field of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel – and they have written to-date thousands of pages upon this innovator Abul-Hasan Al-Misree. Yet not one of the scholars, whom the supporters of Abul-Hasan try to rally around has brought a single detailed reply to the many, many refutations upon Abul-Hasan. Challenge this, Abaa Usaamah, if you are indeed truthful, and defend your companion in bid’ah!

So we say, that Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin, hafidhahullaah, is as Shaykh Rabee’ himself stated: “Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin is not more knowledgeable about Abul-Hasan than Shaykh Rabee’.”

Alongside this we know that Al-Allaamah Rabee’ is the Imaam of al-Jarh wa Ta’deel in our time as stated by Shaykhul-Islaam Al-Albaanee, rahimahullaah – and is more knowledgeable that Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin in this field, though Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is an ‘Aalim. So he is the expert in this field recommended by another expert in the field. Shaikh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) said that Shaykh Rabee’ is a sign from the signs of Allaah in uncovering the Hizbiyyeen!

So we do not need to look into, nor are we obligated to know why Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin, hafidhahullaah, does not maketabdee’ upon Abul-Hasan (i.e. declare him to be an innovator), since we have what is sufficient by way of exposition and refutation from the other scholars upon Abul-Fitan Al-Ma’rabee. Sufficient is it that a scholar is rewarded a single reward if he is erroneous in a particular matter. So we give him that with which we are obligated, respect and honour – we do not speak ill of him – no more than we would about any of the ‘ulemaa of the Salaf who erred in a particular matter. Rather we make du’aa for them as we have been ordered by the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

Coming soon: Part 3, inshaa’Allaah.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed