Understanding Proofs and Evidences | Al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel
Abu Usamah is a caller to misguidance. He has corrupted the principles of the Sunnah and ascribed them to to the Salaf. He praises ahlul-Bid’ah and calls for others to tolerate the innovators – he utilises the well-known arguments of Ikhwaanees and the hizbees and utilises them against the Salafis. He claims that the likes of Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee would knowingly praise clear innovators, and other scholars would not criticise him (see Part 4 for an exoneration of Imaam al-Shaafi’ee from this evil insinuation). He reaches a crescendo in his talk whereby he starts praising several deviants including Shadeed Muhammad and Bilal Philips. By this, he tries to convince his youthful audience that this is the Manhaj of ash-Shaafi’ee, and Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahumallaah) and the Manhaj of the Salaf.
The Great Scholar Ahmad bin Yahyah an-Najmee (rahimahullaah) stated about Abu Usaamah:
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.
By now the ‘aaqil (intelligent) and sincere reader will have realised that Abu Usamah belongs to a band of callers who“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 Scholars 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-Fatawa, vol. 12). Anyone who analyses the speech of Abu Usamah can clearly see that this individual clearly falls into this trait mentioned by Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah).
He Uses General Statements of Praise for the Mubtadi’ah whilst Ignoring Precise Evidences
Abu Usamah said:
“…WHAT I STILL BELIEVE TODAY and all praise is for Allaah, that Abul-Hasan IS SALAFI and that the MAJOR SCHOLARS of this era, Imaam al-Albaanee and Imaam Ibn Baaz and Imaam Ibn ‘Uthaimeen and Shaikh Muqbil (may Allah have mercy upon them) they all died while being pleased with him..” (Ref: Salafitalk, 2003)
There are others who Abu Usamah praises and/or mixes with from the misguided hizbees, Suroorees and outright innovators (whilst attacking the Salafis all over the world): Muhammad al-Maghraawee, Bilal Philips, Abdur-Raheem Green, Zakir Naik, Suhaib Hasan, Ali Hasan al-Halabi, Ilyas Kirmani, Adnan Abdul-Qadir, Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq,Shadeed Muhammad, Said Rageh, Abu Taubah, Assim Al Hakeem, Abu Muslimah and so on.
Ahlus-Sunnah praise an individual when he is upon the truth, calling to it and defending it from innovations and misguidance. And if that person, no matter how great he may be, deviates from the truth, and persists upon deviation and misguidance after the truth has been conveyed to him, then ahlus-Sunnah disparage him and warn the Ummah from his misguidance. This is not something strange, any ‘aaqil understands this. Even Iblees was once in the company of the noble Angels, and he was from those whom Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, commanded to bow down to Aadam (alaihi salaam), and when he refused and became arrogant, then Allaah, the One free of all imperfection, rebuked him, and warned every nation from this avowed enemy!
And there many of examples, past and present where a scholar may praise a person, and then dispraise him when he sees from him corruption in the Deen – Is that too hard for Abu Usamah to understand? Just to give another clear example from the Salaf: Al-Marwazee (rahimahullaah), from the great Scholars and companions of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullaah) said:
‘I departed to go see Al-Karabeesee, at the time when he was of good standing, for he used to defend the Sunnah and demonstrate support for Abu ‘Abdillaah (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal).
So I said to him: ‘Indeed, the people wish to present this book Al-Mudalliseen to Abu ‘Abdillaah (Ahmad bin Hanbal).So it is best that you regret what you wrote or I will inform Abu ‘Abdillaah.‘
So he said to me: ‘Indeed, Abu ‘Abdillaah is a righteous man, a man of his status has been granted the ability to attain the truth. And I am very pleased that my book will be presented to him. Abu Thawr, Ibn ‘Aqeel and Hubaish have already asked me to destroy this book, but I refused and said to them: Rather, I will intensify my promotion of it!’
So he persisted in that and he refused to go back on what he wrote in it. So I brought the book to Abu ‘Abdillaah (Imaam Ahmad), while he was unaware of who authored it. And in the book, there was disparaging of Al-A’mash and support in favour of al-Hasan Ibn Saalih. And there was written in it: ‘If you say that Al-Hasan Ibn Saalih took the views of the Khawaarij, then this Ibnuz-Zubair is truly the one who has accepted the views of the Khawaarij!’
So when it was read to Abu ‘Abdillaah Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullaah), he said: ‘This book compiles, for those who oppose (the Sunnah), that which they are not able to use as substantial proof. Warn others about this book!‘ And he renounced it.'” Sharh ‘Ilal-ut-Tirmidhee (2/806-808)
Can you see, O Salafi, O one with ‘aql, how this al-Karabeesee used to be a man of good standing with the Scholars, then he deviated, so he was warned against, so much so that it is narrated: Abu Ahmad bin ‘Adee said: I heard Muhammad bin ‘Abdillaah as-Sairafee ash-Shaafi’ee saying to them, i.e. to his students:
“Take a lesson from these two: Husayn al-Karabeesee and Abu Thawr. The knowledge of Abu Thawr was not even a tenth of Husayn in his knowledge and memorisation – Yet [Imaam] Ahmad spoke against him (i.e. al-Karabeesee) in the issue of the utterance of the Qur’aan (whether it is created or not), so he fell [in rank] – and he praised Abu Thawr [for his adherence to the Sunnah] so he rose [in rank].” Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’yyeen of Ibn Katheer and Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’iyyah al-Kubraa of al-Subki.
Can the truth be any clearer than this? On a slightly different note, these same traits of al-Karabeesee can be seen in Abu Usamah – Except that al-Karabeesee was a scholar and possessed knowledge, and we do not mean to belittle al-Karaabeesee in the slightest – alongside his deviation – by using him as an example for Abu Usamah! You can clearly see how a person who was considered to be a Scholar who would defend the Sunnah and the Scholars, then innovates and persists upon that, and he thus falls in the eyes of the People of Knowledge, so they refute him, oppose him – declare him to be deviated and misguided and warn the Ummah from, so much so that his works are considered worthless till the Hour is established. This description befits Abul-Hasan and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq (and others upon this path)!
- Al-Karabeesee claimed to defend the Sunnah, same as Abu Usamah.
- Al-Karabeesee professed support for the leading scholars like Imaam Ahmad whilst opposing their Manhaj, same as Abu Usamah,
- Al-Karabeesee praised the innovators, criticised the Sahaabah and thought Imaam Ahmad (and the Scholars) would not take him to account, same delusion Abu Usamah has fallen into! He thinks he will not be called to account.
- Al-Karabeesee was deceived by his own “self-worth” believing he had knowledge to offer, same as Abu Usamah,
- Al-Karabeesee was rebuked by the Imaams and told to destroy his book that contains bid’ah, so instead, he started praising Imaam Ahmad thinking that he would accept his book. This is the same trick of Abu Usamah, when he doesn’t like the opinion of one scholar (regardless of proofs), he moves on to another until he finds one who agrees with his desires, regardless of proofs!
- Al-Karabeesee disparaged the Imaams of Sunnah and praised the people innovation, so Imaam Ahmad (bin Hanbal) rebuked him and eventually abandoned him and warned from him, as is reported in other narrations – likewise Imaam Ahmad (an-Najmee) with Abu Usamah.
So this is the Manhaj of Abu Usamah (the bid’ah is different, but the mindset is the same) – he sees the deviations of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and al-Ma’rabee as matters of mere tolerated ijtihaad, so we should not “import the problems for an example of shaikh fulaan against shaikh fulaan” (to quote Abu Usamah directly) and we should not “love and hate” based upon these differences as he states. Why? Because he sees these differences in ‘aqeedah and manhaj issues as affairs that should not harm unity – and in essence, just like al-Ma’rabee and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq he is upon the principle of Hasan al-Bannah: “Let us unite upon that which we agree and excuse each other in that which we disagree.” – except of course when it come to his venomous attacks upon the Salafis “in Iraaq, in Palestine, in Europe, in the UK, in the USA and Canada” because he certainly gives them no excuse and no honour, he reserves that for the innovators! At an academic level criticises the beliefs of the extreme Shi’ah and the extreme Soofees etc (to remain in favour with masses), yet he praises his political masters and ideologues and the innovators his group associates with and continually invites (with sprinklings of a Salafi Shaikh here and there just to keep the facade of Salafiyyah apparent, in order to deceive the youth).
Another example of someone from the early times who was known for knowledge, piety and his tremendous contribution was Ya’qoob bin Shaibah (died 262H) – he 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).” Then he goes on to say that he had authored a huge Musnad in hadeeth spanning 30 volumes. 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.”
It is therefore the ‘Aqeedah, the Usool, the Manhaj that unites our ranks – we love based upon it, and we hate those innovators who oppose it, as was the way of the Salaf. A man who was a “great Haafidh”, an “Allaamah” who compiled 30 volumes in hadeeth – even if he opposes the usool, and persists upon that, then he is refuted and abandoned and warned from. He is not to be sat with, nor honoured or cooperated with.
From the Satanic deceptions of Abu Usamah, his half-truths and “information distortion” is his claim that Salafi Publications would praise a person, raise him and then criticise that very person after some time – and this somehow proves their “corrupted manhaj”. The truth is that there are many individuals who were upon Salafiyyah and calling to Salafiyyah whom al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah praised and regarded as Scholars, but then just like some of the innovators of old (e.. Ya’qoob bin Shaibah and al-Karabeesee), they deviated from the truth – the same scholars who praised them started to refute them – so we refute them. So let us now bring modern day examples:
- Shaikh al-Albaanee praised Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, then he refuted him when his innovations became apparent.
- Shaikh Ibn Baaz praised Safar al-Hawaalee and Salmaan al-Awdah and then when their bid’ah became clear he refuted them and called for them to be prevented from teaching. Same with Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen who initially praised them, then later, he warned from their revolutionary Marxist ideas.
- Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee praised ‘Aqeel al-Maqtaree and then refuted him when his bid’ah and hizbiyyah became apparent. Shaikh Muqbil also praised Abul-Hasan al-Ma’rabee and towards the end of his life when al-Ma’rabee’s treachery came to the surface, he cautioned against him.
- Shaikh Rabee’ bin Haadee would praise al-Ma’rabee, then when his bid’ah became apparent he refuted him, and likewise with Faalih al-Harbee and Ali Hasan and al-Maghraawee.
- The Scholars would praise al-Maghraawee and al-Ar’oor until they turned to the path of al-Qutubiyyah.
And this is the method with Ahlus-Sunnah, to give a person his right, and raise him in accordance to his knowledge and adherence, and if he deviates, and persists upon his deviation, then he is boycotted and warned against. This is our stance with Suhaib Hasan, his son (self-proclaimed offspring of monkeys), and Abu Usamah – that there was a time when even these astray individuals were people we would cooperate with, but when they displayed their innovations and made open their praise for the innovators (the enemies of the Religion), and they cast to one side the proofs and evidences, and opposed the principles of the Sharee’ah, and they persisted upon that, the scholars warned against them. So al-‘Allaamah Muqbil bin Haadee (rahimahullaah) warned from Suhaib Hasan in 1998; the proofs was established and evidences were clear – yet Abu Usamah continued his praise of him and reserved his venom for the Salafis (all around the world), why? Firstly, because Abu Usamah sees himself as a mujtihad, as a person who has the ability to decide these affairs. Secondly, because in actuality, he shares the same Bid’ee, Bannaawee principles of those he defends and praises and shares platforms with. And if there is one thing that these articles have proven then it is that this man is an ignoramus, treacherous deceiver who portrays himself as a person of knowledge, yet at every turn he is mistake waiting to happen! Look at the litany of destructive mistakes of this man:
- accusations against Imaam al-Bukhaaree in his ‘aqeedah,
- cursing a noble Companion (Waleed bin Uqbah),
- cursing the Muslim rulers in general (and Saudi Arabia in specific),
- disparagement upon Shaikh Rabee’,
- kind words for the innovator Yusuf al-Qardaawee,
- praise and defence of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq,
- belittlement of Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq by making him an illustrative example,
- praise of Zakir Naik,
- years of love and affection towards Jam’iyyah Ihyaa Turaath,
- defence of al-Ma’rabee,
- silence in the face of innovators who curse the Scholars,
- sharing the stage with well-innovators and hizbees,
- praise of those attack Shaikh Rabee’ and praise Sayyid Qutb,
- open attacks upon the Salafis worldwide (in Iraaq, Palestine, Europe, UK, USA and Canada) and accusing them of corruption in Manhaj.
All of these points are well-known and documented, alhamdulillaah. To defend him after this is to defend the indefensible. The praise of any Shaikh for Abu Usamah does not justify, or explain away this level of wickedness.
Who would trust their religion in his hands? A man who has to continually make tawbah for his disasters only to fall into them over and over again! How can he be trusted in his religion, in his knolwedge – and worse still who would put their Religion in his care? He may convince his followers of something one day in opposition to the ‘aqeedah, and they defend it as if their life depended upon it, only to see him having to make yet another bayaan in clarification of his latest calamity!
Is that not exactly what took place with his comments with respect to the honour of the Caliph Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu)?! Were his followers not convinced by him? Did he not tell the youth around him publicly that only a person person with “a sound and sincere heart” would accept and understand his speech concerning Abu Bakr (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu)?! Did not these youth (on YouTube and in Green Lane) give him excuse after excuse, “you have to look see what the “shaikh” intended”,and “he intended this and he intended that”? To the point that the blind-following ignorant innovating Deobandees had to tell you that Abu Usaamah had violated the honour of a Sahaabee! And those blinded by Abu Usamah still did not accept – this is true hizbiyyah – to defend your party-member, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. Yes, O youth, some of you were convinced because of you have allowed this man to deceive you. So let the deception stop here. Abandon this treacherous individual who possesses a clumsy tongue and a dull-wit that corrupts the da’wah and gives Islaam (let alone Salafiyyah) a bad name!
Abu Usamah Tainting The Reputation of Salafi Publications and the Scholars Because They Refute Those Who They Used To Praise
And we say without shame: It is true that the brothers at Salafi Publications, and the Salafis in general the world-over, used to take benefit from Ali Hasan al-Halabee, from Abul-Hasan al-Ma’rabee, from Faalih bin Naafi’ al-Harbee, from Fawzee al-Bahrainee and others – ALL of whom were very-much praised and recommended by the major scholars at one stage. For example, Faalih al-Harbee was praised by Shaikh Ibn Baaz, Ali al-Halabee was praised by Shaikh al-Albanee, Fawzee al-Bahrainee was praised by Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen, al-Ma’rabee was praised by Shaikh Rabee’, Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq was praised by Shaikh al-Albaanee. So we praised them in line with the scholars, and we abandoned them when there appeared in them deviation! But Abu Usamah has no concern for proofs and evidences – he supports whatever agrees with his hawaa (desires) – and he disparages whatever goes against his desires.
So the Manhaj of the Salafi is to hold fast to the truth – not like Abu Usamah who treats the Salafi Manhaj like a buffet bar for food: take what you want and leave what you do not want – he believes that the Salafi Manhaj accommodates the innovators and innovations, the likes of which were unheard of even in the times of the Salaf. Then he has the audacity to claim that al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah are upon a “Salafiyyah Jadeedah” (a new-age innovated Salafiyyah). He is merely parroting here the speech of the Qutubees against the Salafi Ulamah, the likes of Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee, the student of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. So the Imaams of the Salaf would “love and hate” and make “allegiance and enmity” based upon the principles of Salafiyyah and they refuted those who opposed the ‘Aqeedah and Manhaj of the Salaf. Shaikh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taimiyyah (died 728H) said:
“This is the reality of the statement of those from the Salaf and the people of knowledge that say: ‘Verily, the ones who called towards innovations are not to have their testimony accepted. Nor should they be followed in prayer. Nor should knowledge be taken from them. Nor should they be given women in marriage.’ This is their recompense, until they stop what they are doing. Due to this, it must be noted that there is a difference between one who calls towards innovations and one who doesn’t call to it (but yet is still an innovator). The one who calls to it, publicly displays his evil and thus it is necessary to punish him, as opposed to the one who conceals his innovation. Indeed, this latter one is only as evil as the hypocrites – those whom the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to accept their open proclamations (of Faith) and entrust their secret proclamations to Allaah, while possessing knowledge of the condition of most of them.” Majmoo’ al-Fatawa (28/520)
The Salaf would not attend even the funerals of the innovators, let alone sit with them on public stages and praise them to their faces. They would not mix with them in life, nor honour them after death. Shaikh Zayd bin Muhammad bin Haadee al-Madkhalee (hafidhahullaah) stated:
When Bishr al-Mareesee died, not a single Sunni attended his janaazah – and this was alongside the fact that that the people of Sunnah were widespread in the land – except one man from Ahlus-Sunnah did attend, and he knew what Bishr al-Mareesee was upon from “Tajahhum”, i.e. negation of the Names and Attributes, denial of the punishment of the grave, denial of the intercession on the Day of Resurrection – however he only attended the funeral to make du’aa against him, not to make du’aa for him! So when Bishr was placed in his grave, this Sunni supplicated:
“O Allaah! If this servant of your’s denied the Punishment of the Grave, then let him taste the Punishment of the Grave the likes of which no one from existence has ever tasted!
So when the people supplicated, he likewise continued to supplicate:
“O Allaah! If this servant of your denied the Intercession of the Day of Resurrection, then do not permit any of your servants to intercede for him.”
When he returned to his companions from Ahlus-Sunnah, they said to him,
“You claim you are a person of Sunnah, yet you accompanied the funeral of Bishr?!” He responded, “Don’t be hasty until I inform you [of what I did].”
So he informed them regarding what he had done and said – they believed him and laughed after initially being annoyed and angry with him.
See: Taareekh Baghdaad of al-Khateeb (7/22), Akhbaar adh-Dhiraaf wal-Mutamaajineen of Ibnul-Jawzee (p.70), from the book: at-Ta’leeq al-Mateen ‘ala Asl as-Sunnah wa I’tiqaad ad-Deen of the two Imaams ar-Raaziyain by al-‘Allaamah Zaid bin Muhammad bin Haadeeal-Madkhalee, (p. 196)
So the origin with ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, the Salafis, is that they do not attend the gatherings of ahlul-Bid’ah, they do not praise them or honour them, or share platforms with them – and even if an Imaam of the Sunnah agrees to attend, then it is for the purpose of clarifying the truth and exposing their misguidance, as Shaikh al-Albaanee and others have stated, and this is, and this is the way of Shaikh Rabee’. So the Salaf were clear with regard to the ijmaa’ concerning disassociation from ahlul-Bid’ah.
The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) also warned against the People of Innovation, from befriending, supporting or taking from them:
“Whoever innovates or accommodates an innovator then upon him is the curse of Allaah, His Angels and the whole of mankind.” Reported by Bukhaaree (12/41) and Muslim (9/140)
The consensus of the abandonment of the people of innovation has been reported from a group of the Salaf – and whoever denies or rejects this ijmaa’ is either ignorant or himself a person of innovation. Al-Fudayl bin ‘Iyaad (d. 187H) said:
“I met the best of people, all of them people of the Sunnah and they used to forbid from accompanying the people of innovation.” Reported by al-Laalikaa’ee (no.267)
Support of them is aiding in the destruction of Islaam. Ibraaheem bin Maysarah (d.132H) said:
“Whoever honours an innovator has aided in the destruction of Islam.” Reported by al-Laalikaa’ee (1/139).
Or maybe Abu Usamah believes that the Salaf of this Ummah practised the art of “six-degrees of separation”, because they too would judge a person based upon his associations. Al-Fudayl bin ‘Iyaad (d. 187H) said:
“Whoever sits with a person of innovation, then beware of him and whoever sits with a person of innovation has not been given wisdom. I love that there was fort of iron between me and a person of innovation. That I eat with a Jew and a Christian is more beloved to me than that I eat with a person of innovation.” Reported by al-Laalikaa’ee (no.1149)
Here al-Fudayl is NOT referring to the person of innovation or the caller, but merely one who sits with them – beware of him for indeed he has not been given wisdom, i.e. the criterion of the Sunnah. Furthermore when Abu Usamah directs people to the innovators and the jama’aat, he directs them to destruction and misguidance – he is misguided and he misguides others. Al-Fudayl bin ‘Iyaad said:
“If a man comes to a person to consult him and he directs him to an innovator, then he has made a deception of Islaam. Beware of going to a person of innovation for they divert [people] from the truth.” Sharh Usool ul-I’tiqaad of al-Laalikaa’ee (no.261)
Abu Usamah directs to the jama’aat of hizbiyyah and the people of innovation. The Salaf would not pass judgement upon a person until they had seen his companionship. Yahyaa bin Katheer said,
“Sulaimaan bin Daawood (‘alaihis-salaam) said: Do not pass a judgement over anyone with anything until you see whom he befriends.” Al-Ibaanah (2/464)
Moosaa bin Uqbah the Syrian approached Baghdad and this was mentioned to Imaam Ahmad. So he said,
“Look at whose residence he goes to and with whom he resides and finds shelter.” Al-Ibaanah (2/480)
Imaam Al-Awzaa’ee said,
“Whoever hides his innovation from us will not be able to hide his companionship from us.” Al-Ibaanah (2/476)
Al-A’mash (rahimahullaah) said,
“They (the Salaf) did not used to ask anything more about a person after having asked about three affairs: Who he walks with, who he enters upon (i.e. visits) and who he associates with amongst the people.” Al-Ibaanah (2/478)
Muhammad bin Ubaid al-Ghulaabee (rahimahullaah) said,
“The Ahl ul-Ahwaa (People of Desires) hide everything except their intimate friendship and companionship.” Al-Ibaanah (2/482)
Abu Usamah is not able to hide his affections, his friends, his companions, he is likewise not able to hide his venom for the Salafis, so we say as Mu’aadh bin Mu’aadh (rahimahullaah) said to Yahyaa bin Sa’eed (rahimahullaah),
“O Abu Sa’eed! A person may hide his viewpoint from us, but he will not be able to hide that in his son, or his friend or in the one whom he sits with.” Al-Ibaanah (2/437)
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)
So these are scales that we use to judge with, these are the scales of the Salaf. Abu Usamah innovations are numerous, his treachery is tremendous, he has corrupted the principles of Salafiyyah and ascribed it to Salaf – his companionship, cooperation and praise of ahlul-bid’ah is not swept under the rug due to his splattering of praise of some of ahlus-Sunnah.
Next in Part 4, we will deal with Abu Usamah’s false and fraudulent claim regarding ash-Shaafi’ee, inshaa’Allaah.