When the three sheikhs of Salafiyyah, Abdullah Bun Baaz, Al Albaanee and Ibnu ‘Uthaymeen who were all giants and contemporaries disagreed on matters of the Deen, it was easy to know by reading their individual works on the disputed matter even if it was as little as where to place the hands on rising from the rukoo’ or the legal ruling on the face veil. Once it was clear to them what a man had said and intended by his saying, no special conferences for permission were first held to reassure one another that a refutation was not being done to pull down somebody or cause disunity in the Salafee ranks even though Bun Baaz remained the exalted grand mufti of the Kingdom till death.

To all three, as to the earlier blessed scholars before them, the truth was more sacred and they were not intoxicated by their own personalities nor overwhelmed by others the fear of displeasing whom would seal the lips to maintain misconceived “salafi unity”. What colossal personalities indeed they all were till death! May Allah forgive them all.

No doubt, the uproar and discontent that greets every semblance of disagreement with any popular daa’iyah on our local terrain of Salafee da’wah cannot all be from our greater praise-worthy concern for the truth, especially when there has been no insult of any kind to the person being refuted, and more especially when it is noted that the strange principles of first holding a tryst on every item of disagreement is often violated by those who advocate it and whose personalities we often seek to massage with our misplaced indignation that ends up fanning unfortunate embers.

Truly, some matters are insignificant enough to be overlooked, but once a daa’iyah has chosen to make a big issue and point of public focus of them, they may not remain so and that may justify appropriate responses before they snowball into worse than an appropriate refutation would cause. However, we get to see the refutations before the worse evils that might follow otherwise.

To all advocates of unity and harmony, let us all meet at the ground of the truth. As far as we’re concerned, those we refute remain very much our brothers. A person does not become less of a brother by refutation as by how he takes it. May the prime position of the truth never dwindle in our eyes.

Weitten by: Sheikh Murtado Adedokun, Hafidhahullah.

Calling yourself (Salafi) is sectarianism (مذهبية أو طائفية)!!!

It is not funny though, seeing fans whenever one of their deviants scholars vomits nonsense, the followers come out to defend him blindly, then a known matter in the deen will become unknown, they look for scholars that would say similar thing to back their deviants!

No one ever forces you to attach salafi to your name, and you have no right whatsoever to blame those who attach it to their names, but, the way of salaf is compulsory on everyone to trend!!

Automatically or manually you are a salafi as far as you take their way a lovely way to trend

What divides the Ummah is not the names but innovations, this is what should be a primary concern of a sensible scholar, he should be discussing and be treating this, if Salafiyyah is worthy of trending to you, and it is not a new way, it is a way of Sohaabah and those who came after them, how can being a salafi be a problem to you?

Calling carpenter a carpenter is not a problem to people, calling mason a mason is not a problem to people, they are called because of what they do!!!

Hiding behind the statement of Sheikh Uthaymayn is a sign of deviation without doubt, the scholars before Sheikh saw nothing wrong in doing so, they even encouraged that:

** Imam Dhaabi qualified Imam Ddaaraqutmi as Salafi in Siyar (16/457), he said:
“قُلْتُ: لَمْ يَدْخلِ الرَّجُلُ أَبداً فِي علمِ الكَلاَمِ وَلاَ الجِدَالِ، وَلاَ خَاضَ فِي ذَلِكَ، بَلْ كَانَ سلفيّ
“I said: the man (Imam Ddaaraqutmi) wasn’t involved in theology and wasn’t dived into it, but he was a Salafi.”

** And he (Imam Dhaabi) calls a serious one to be a salafi in the same book quoted (13/380):
“فَالَّذِي يحتَاج إِلَيْهِ الحَافِظُ أَن يَكُون تقياً ذكياً، نَحْوِيّاً لُغَوِيّاً زكياً، حَيِيّاً، سَلَفياً.”

“What Haafidh is in need of, is being a God’s fearing, brilliant, grammarian, linguist, intelligent, bashful, Salafi.”

** This is Sheikhul Islaam ibn Taymiyah, he said in Majmoo’ul Fataawa (4/149):
“لَا عَيْبَ عَلَى مَنْ أَظْهَرَ مَذْهَبَ السَّلَفِ وَانْتَسَبَ إلَيْهِ وَاعْتَزَى إلَيْهِ بَلْ يَجِبُ قَبُولُ ذَلِكَ مِنْهُ بِالِاتِّفَاقِ. فَإِنَّ مَذْهَبَ السَّلَفِ لَا يَكُونُ إلَّا حَقًّا.”

And even the scholars of his time saw nothing wrong in a person calling himself a Salafi.
** Sheikh ibn baaz answered a question, what is your take on calling oneself a Salafi and athary, is it a commendation?
The Sheikh said:
” إذا كان صادقا أنه أثر أو سلفي لا بأس به، مثل ما كان السلف يقولون: فلان سلفي، فلان أثري، تزكية لا بد منها، تزكية واجبة.” المحاضرة بعنوان “حق المسلم” ألقيت بالطائف.
“If he should be truthful that he is a Athary or a Salafi nothing is wrong with that, like what Salaf are used to call: so so person is Salafi, so so person is Athary, commendation is must, commendation is compulsory.”

Please, stop ruining after the innocent salafis, may Allah guide us right, and save us from the evils of deviants!!

Written by: Uztadh Abu Haneefah Tanimola, Hafidhahullah

It Saddens But The Truth Is Dearer

It always saddens me to see serious disagreement and division among the mashāyikh and students ascribed to as-Salafiyyah.
However, If this happens, supporting the truth is more beloved to me than defending the personalities of those ascribed to as-Salafiyyah without considering if they are right or wrong. This undoubtedly is the partisanship from which we have fled. And this is similar to what a poet said:

” وما أنا إلا من غزية إن غوت * غويت وإن ترشد غزية أرشد “
( I am but from [the tribe] of Guzayyah. If they stray I shall stray. And if Guzayyah go right, I shall go right.)

Al- imam Ibn al-Qayyim actually spoke the truth when he said:

” شيخ الإسلام حبيب إلينا ولكن الحق أحب إلينا منه “
( Sheikh al-Islam ( referring to Abu Ismāīl al-Harawī) is beloved to us but the truth is more beloved to us than he.)

Yes, a person may truely be upon al-Kitāb and an-Sunnah based on the understanding of the Righteous Predecessors, and all of a sudden he gets swayed by desires; or he may be -as it appears to the people- upon al-Kitāb and an-Sunnah and the understanding of the Righteous Predecessors, and later events and tribulations expose their real manhaj to the people-We ask Allāh for safety and good end.
A lot of scholars such as al-Albāni, Ibn Baaz, Ibn al-Uthaimīn and al-Fawzan, have praised many famous callers ascribed to as-Salafiyyah; they defended them tremendously and refuted those who spoke against them. For instance, ash-sheikh al-Albāni beautifully spoke good of Salmān al-‘Awdah in the muqadimmah of his book ” Sifat Salat an-Nabiyyi” when he refuted al-Gazāliyy( the Ikhwāni) who was speaking ill of some ahādīth of the Prophet, sallā Allāhu alayhi wa sallam, and making jest of them.
He ( al-Albāni) also defended him ( Salmān) in some of the sittings of Silsilatatu al-Hudā wan-Nur; he objected to his being an ikhwāni. However, when his true colour later became clear to him, he recanted and strongly held it that his manhaj is ikhwāni although he may not be a member organizationally.
This was also his stand initially on Safar al-Hawāli; he defended him seriously when he was accused of calling to demonstrations / protests in Algeria. He heavily refuted the brother who was discussing his matter with him. Later, it became clear to the sheikh that he ( Safar) was actually calling to khārijism with a modern methodology, according to the terminology of the sheikh ( modern khārijism).
Ash-sheikh Ibn Bāz and Ibn al-Uthaimeen would also speak well of Salmān al-‘Awdah and Safar al-Hawāli so much so that Ibn Bāz would call the latter ” Ibn Taymiyyah junior”. Later, both of them recanted and withdrew their commendation and warned the youths from them when they saw that both Safar and Salmān were instigating the youth against the rulers.

Ash-sheik al-Fawzān would also praise al-‘Arīfi and al-‘Awdah before; he later warned the youths from them so that they won’t be deceived by them.

Consequently, the ascription of a person to as-Salafiyyah and the call to it does not mean they have gotten immunity not to speak against them when they deviate from the right path– We ask Allah to save us. If ordinary ascription is enough, then warning of these scholars from these people mentioned will be meaningless.

Finally, I would like to say, that which is clear to other than you about the condition of a particular person may be hidden from you; take it easy before taking a position study the matter a study that is devoid of the prior love you have for either party.

This reminds me of what happened to me personally with one of the students of al-Albāni when I visited him during one of the Hajj periods in the hotel which he and a friend of his who happened to be a student of al-Albāni too used to lodge. There was also a visitor with them and their discussion centered around the dispute that was going on between them on the one hand, and another friend of theirs [ another student of al-Albāni too] on the other hand. The visitor was a kind of trying to appeal to them to bring this dispute to an end while both of them were narrating what they had borne concerning their old friend.
The reference point in the story is that after the visitor had left and one of the two sheikhs also left for his room,I started appealing to the other sheikh to take patience and overlook for the general interest of dawah. There and then he said to me, ” Friendship of thirty years is not a trivial thing. However, we defended him until we were soiled through his defence “
When I heard this, I kept mute and discontinued the discussion with him on that topic because I knew it is not strange that something of this nature happens between friends.
[ Translation of A Write- up Written in Arabic Two Years Ago]

Written by: Sheikh ‘AbdulGaniy Jum’ah, Hafidhahullah.