A Response to the Deceit of Abu Usaamah Khalifah and His Lying Tongue

[Spubs.Com]

A Response to the Deceit of Abu Usaamah Khalifah and His Lying Tongue

الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على نبينا محمد وآله وصحبه أجمعين

Background

In the early hours of 25th July 2012, Abu Khadeejah wrote a blog entry with respect to the action of Abu Usaamah of translating for the "Turaathee" Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir who is a student/follower of the deviant, innovator, Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq.

Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq was a former-Ikhwani (upon the manhaj of Hassan al-Banna) who entered Salafiyyah and then tried to poison multitudes of Salafis in various parts of the world with his Ikhwani poison through the organization known as Ihyaa al-Turaath al-Islaamee (in Kuwait). He degraded the Scholars of the Sunnah and sought to poison the Salafi youth with the teachings of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, that were carefully formulated for a Salafi audience through the use of many false innovated principles. In his wake followed many others, such as Adnan Ar'oor and Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee. Both Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir (who is the appointed chief fundraiser for Green Lane Mosque) and his teacher (Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq) are Turaathees of Kuwait. The Scholar of Madeenah, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee, described this group as follows:

"No, by Allaah! It is not upon the Salafee manhaj! By Allaah it is upon the Ikhwaanee Manhaj, firmly established...For indeed, Allaah did not burden us except with what we have knowledge of, and this Jam'iyyah is hizbee..."(Audio with Salafi Publications, Birmingham; See also Siyaanatus-Salafi, pp. 556-628 of Shaikh Ahmad Baazmool)

Like all politic groups with "Machiavellian tactics", when it became known that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq had received severe criticisms from the Major Scholars including Shaykh Ibn Baz and Shaykh al-Albani as well as strong refutations from Shaykh's Rabee and Shaykh Muqbil and many others, they realised this would finish them as a party, and harm the political interests of the Jam'iyyah - so they made a pretence that he is no longer the head of the Jam'iyyah and is no longer affiliated with it. These are games that hizbee groups play in order to fool the Muslims at large. But the scholars and those firmly-grounded are not fooled by the tricks of the deviants.

Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee (hafidhahullaah) stated:

"So the point is, 'Abdur-Rahmaan 'Abdul-Khaaliq, he is not unknown to us, nor unknown to all of you, and he is their shaykh up until this very hour – even if they try to distance him from themselves."
(Audio with Salafi Publications)

Now of course Abu Usaamah cannot contest this reality because, as you will hear below, he confesses to not have researched the affair of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. As for Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee then he is fully acquainted with the affair for twenty years and more - he (hafidhahullaah) stated in the same audio: "And I, indeed I have spoken regarding this in many tapes, I have speech regarding this in two tapes [just] in Kuwait with them." Shaikh Ahmad Bazmool (hafidhahullaah) in Siyaanatus-Salafi devotes over seventy pages of the statements of the Scholars in refutation of Ihyaa Turaath and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. He quotes directly from the following Scholars:

• Shaikh al-Albaanee
• Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee
• Shaikh Ahmad bin Yahyah an-Najmee
• Shaikh Rabee' bin Haadee al-Madkhalee
• Shaikh Ubaid al-Jaabiree
• Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee
• Shaikh Ahmad as-Subay'ee

We can add to that dozens more: Shaikh Muhammad Ramzaan al-Haajiree, Shaikh Muhammad al-Anjaree, Shaikh Falaah Ismaa'eel, Shaikh Taariq as-Subay'ee and so on. And Abu Usaamah is in no position to contradict these scholars, because he himself bears witness that he doesn't know, he has no opinion because he hasn't studied the affair (listen to audio further below for his own admission). Shaikh Ahmad Bazmool on the other hand has studied the affair, and has seen the evidences, and has devoted over seventy pages to the statements of the scholars - so that should be crystal clear to the reader. There is no "six degrees of separation" principle being played with here, rather the guiding principle is the hadeeth of Allaah's Messenger (salallaahu alaihi wassallam): "A person is upon the Religion of his close companion, so look to whom you take as your companion." (Abu Dawood, Ahmad, at-Tirmidhee). And Ibn Mas'ood (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) said: "From the fiqh of a man is whom he walks with, and who he enters upon, and who he sits with. May Allaah raise the poet who said: Regarding a person do not ask a thing, rather just look at his companionship." (az-Zuhd of Ibn al-Mubaarak, Ibn Abee Shaibah, al-Ibaanah) So ponder O Sunni! Don't let this criminal try to invalidate the statements of the Messenger of Allaah (sallaallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the generality of the Sahaabah and the Salaf by making it look as if the Salafis are using "concepts invented by the kuffaar"! Through your own history of misguided choices, misguided alignments and following of desires, you Abu Usaamah have ended up on platforms, translating for students of Ikhwani innovators who brought innovated principles the likes of which have never been innovated in the history of Islaam. And thus, it is befitting, even if you were the most ignorant of people, that you are criticized for ending up in such a humiliating situation.

Moving on to Abu Khadeejah's Blog Post

Following the blog post, on the night of the same day, the 25th July, Abu Usaamah gave a video-recorded lecture in which he claimed to present what he calls "sincere advice". It was in reality, a compilation of utter confusion and blatant contradiction, much of which will be highlighted elsewhere (inshaa'allaah). Here we wish to deal with the essence of his (false) claim that Abu Khadeejah attempted to use the speech of the Shaykh, al-Imaam al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) in a deceptive way to show that Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq is an innovator. This lie becomes ever more serious when you come to realize (as is apparent from the video) that Abu Usamah was holding a printed copy of the blog post in front of his face for most of the lecture, yet he never once read where Abu Khadeejah had said that Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) had made tabdee' on Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq or even implied it. In a whole hour and more, not once does he read this alleged assertion of Abu Khadeejah? It is from our manhaj that we quote correctly, when we intend to refute someone. Abu Usaamah spent a whole hour playing with the minds of his audience, not once did he say, "Let us now read verbatim the speech of Abu Khadeejah so you can see for yourself." And the reason will become clear to you in what follows.

Abu Usaamah (as we have known him ever since he disgraced himself in the fitnah of another Ikhwani innovator, Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee) is a deceptive, conniving individual who sees nothing wrong with blatantly lying to an audience that isn't really going to make much effort to verify his claims. So ask the audience to verify. Read this document, check the quotes - come and talk to Abu Khadeejah, Abu Hakeem and Abu Iyaad - ask them for further clarification. Telephone or visit the living scholars we are quoting and verify what we have said. As Shaikh Muhammad al-Anjaree (hafidhahullaah) oft-repeats in his advices, "Salafiyyah is upon clarity, their is no deception and nothing hidden in our da'wah."

The Issue

Regarding the blog post in question, Abu Usaamah states that he has a copy saved of the post "in case it is taken down"! - don't worry brothers and sisters, we have no intention of taking it down. In this blog post, it was stated (emphasis added):

"Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is the leading figurehead of the group Ihyaa Turaath of Kuwait - he was refuted by numerous major scholars, including the Shaykh, the Muhaddith and Imaam Al-Albaanee (rahimhullaah). He was declared an innovator by the Imaam of Yemen Muqbil bin Haadee (rahimahullaah).

So Abu Khadeejah clearly made a careful distinction between the refutation of al-Albaanee and the tabdee' of Shaikh Muqbil (rahimahumallaah), which Abu Usaamah failed to make mention of throughout his hour long rant. Then after this statement, Abu Khadeejah cited a quote of Shaykh al-Albaanee indicating the nature of the refutation by Shaykh al-Albaanee, which is the declaration of his manhaj to be Ikhwanee. Within the speech of Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) are the following disparaging remarks:

"So he [i.e. al-Albaanee himself] knows the circumstances in which the Muslims live, but he adheres to the Sharee'ah rulings and he does not hold that there is any way for a Muslim to say, 'The goal justifies the means,' and if Abdur-Rahmaan were to be asked, and he was a student of mine in the Islamic University, if he were asked or if I had the opportunity to meet him, 'Do you say that the goal justifies the means?' Then he would say, 'No,' because this is a principle of kufr. But if we direct his attention to the fact that he acts in accordance with it, and his life, and what he declares permissible, and that which he clearly states to be permissible from some of the forbidden things, then this is implementation of this principle which is such that no Muslim can consent to it. So he must reject it. But we say, 'What is the benefit of saying one thing and doing something else?'"

And also:

"So therefore we ask for this brother of ours (Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq), and for those who have been mislead by his example into contravening the Sharee'ah in some rulings, we ask Allaah to guide and grant us and them that we truly follow the way of the Book and the Sunnah, upon the manhaj of as-Salafus-Saalih, and I return to saying that this circumvention of certain Sharee'ah rulings is contrary to the way of the Muslims throughout the ages. "And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believer's way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination." Soorah an-Nisaa (4):115. So we ask Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, to make us aware of the way of the first Muslims, and guides us to proceed upon that way."

In these two passages there is a clear, plain refutation of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq and his manhaj by Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah):

• "Firstly, he organised a group, a partisan-organisation, do you know this? Abdur-Rahmaan. This partisan organisation, this formation of a group is not upon the Salafee manhaj that we call to..."
• "contravenes the Sharee'ah...",
• "this circumvention of certain Sharee'ah rulings is contrary to the way of the Muslims throughout the ages",
• "and for those who have been mislead by his example"
• "he [i.e. Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq] clearly states to be permissible from some of the forbidden things"
• "this implementation of this principle is such that no Muslim can consent to it..."
• "What is the benefit of saying one thing and doing another"?
• Citation of the verse(!): "And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believer's way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination."

From here, there are now a number of issues:
a) is there contextual disagreement between what Abu Khadeejah said and what he quoted from Shaykh al-Albaanee? Answer: No.
b) Has it been claimed that Shaykh al-Albaanee made tabdee' of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq? Answer: No.
c) Is there any apparent praise or tazkiyah in the speech of Shaykh al-Albaanee for Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq? We will address these issues below inshaa'allaah.

The Question Abu Usaamah Dared Not Address

Sitting in front of his audience with a print out of the blog post in his hand, knowing full well that, at that point in time, none of his audience are able to read verbatim exactly what was in the blog post, there was an obvious question that Abu Usaamah dared not address: Abu Khadeejah had stated:

Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is the leading figurehead of the group Ihyaa Turaath of Kuwait - he was refuted by numerous major scholars, including the Shaykh, the Muhaddith and Imaam Al-Albaanee (rahimhullaah)...

The real and true question is: "Does the speech of al-Albaanee that was quoted amount to a refutation or not, exactly as described in the blog post?" And the answer is: If you do not see the speech of al-Albaanee as comprising a refutation, then you are dishonest or lacking in intellect, or both! The fact that Shaykh al-Albaane should mention incidentally that Abdur-Rahmaan was a former good student, and that he is Salafi, does nothing to change the fact that Shaykh Albaanee's words are a refutation of the manhaj of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq. Can anyone dispute that fact? In fact is there any Scholar who has ever studied these words of Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) walked away and said: "Maashaallaah! That was a nice praiseworthy statement of Shaikh al-Albaanee for Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq."?! (See Siyaanatus-Salafi min Waswasati wa Talbeesaat Alee al-Halabee, pp. 613-617 of Shaikh Ahmad Baazmool).

What the Skull of Abu Usaamah Is Unable To Absorb

This is it here: That a person can be described as a Salafi and still be criticised and refuted for mistakes and errors arising from him, even in the Usool. And these scholars may not remove him from Salafiyyah from the outset, even if at the same time they refute and criticize him, because to them, they have not seen that the proof has been established upon that individual to warrant expelling him from Salafiyyah. However, to others, they observe, witness and experience other realities (in more detail) and declare such a person an innovator because they have experienced what others have not, and they have proven that the hujjah (proof) has been established upon that individual, as is the case with the likes of Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee (rahimahullaah) - but what is common between the two is the criticism and the refutation of the oppositions of this opposer - and this is where Abu Usaamah slips up, or deliberately deceives his audience who like him clearly "have not studied the issue" and thus believe his conniving deceptions. So allow us to begin opening the eyes of those who may not know, so that they, like us, may see his lies and political machinations for what they are.

The Aql of Abu Usaamah Illustrated...

Here we have Abu Usaamah revealing the reality of his aql. In his so called "sincere advice" of the night of the 25th July, he said (regarding what is contained in Shaykh al-Albaanee's speech and which Abu Usaamah sees as praise):

Because he said some nice things about Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, but so did al-Albaanee.If you go back to what Abu Khadeejah posted. Its [not] as if he doesn't know what he posted himself. If you go back and read what he posted, al-Albaanee was praising Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, "he was one of my students...", "he was from the best students..."

The things that Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) stated were incidental to the main point of discussion which is that this man Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq has come along with an innovated manhaj - and he is propagating a methodology through certain books by which the youth are being driven away from the Scholars (such as al-Albaanee, Ibn Baaz and Ibn Uthaimeen) - and speaking ill of them. So Shaykh al-Albaanee is simply mentioning in response and as historical record certain things about Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, that he was a former student of his in the Jaami'ah (in Madinah). And in the second statement quoted from al-Albaanee in the quote, he says that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq was "one of the best of the youth who were attentive to the lessons and what was taught..." Then the Shaykh proceeds to highlight the criticism against him that his manhaj is Ikhwaanee and he follows the way of Salman al-Awdah.

Now, this is like if al-Hasan al-Basree were to say (just by way of illustration), that "Waasil bin Ataa (the founder of the Mu'tazilah) was one of my zealous students, attentive to lessons....", or Imaam Ahmad saying, "al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee (a Kullaabee, person of kalaam) was one of my companions, associates, attentive to lessons and readings...." or whatever else resembles that. And we don't mean to diminish the status of al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee by likening him to Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq or raise the status of the latter by likening him to the former by way of this example, that is not intended, but we are just highlighting the reality of Abu Usaamah's sophistry!

So after this historical factual note, al-Hasan al-Basree proceeds (by way of illustration) to refute the way of Waasil bin Ataa, or Imaam Ahmad proceeds to refute the way of al-Haarith. With which 'aql (intellect) would anyone understand this to be al-muwaazanah or an intended praise and tazkiyah of the individual concerned? Yes, only with the defunct intellect of Abu Usaamah. Amazingly by some conjuring trick, this kadhdhaab has turned the refutation and criticism of Imaam al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) into a praise of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, and even worse than that, we have encountered naive brothers who now actually believe the above statements of Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) are in support of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq! It would truly be laughable were it not so serious.

We are simply seeing a repeat of what Abu Usaamah was doing ten years ago when he meddled in the fitnah of al-Ma'ribee, the Ikhwaani innovator, and at that time he was appropriately declared an Innovator by Shaykh Ahmad al-Najmee (rahimahullaah):

Question: "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. This history and reality is hidden to many of those who are delighted to hear the falsehood of Abu Usaamah in his so called "sincere advice".

Abu Usaamah Plays Games with the Minds of the People

As for Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) saying that he (Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq) is "Salafee", then because Abu Usaamah is a pauper in his understanding of how to read historical narratives, he is blinded to the following reality and matter of fact:

When a person who is a Salafi (or at least ascribes to Salafiyyah) begins to show signs of misguidance - whatever form that might be - then there is nothing wrong if a person of knowledge says that, "So and so is a Salafee, but he has something of such and such misguidance; or something of the ways of such and such sect." This simply means that whilst the scholar affirms that the individual is Salafi (at this point in time), observations are made upon errors, mistakes or misguidance that are visible from that individual's statements or actions - this is an obligation upon the Ummah by kifaayah - i.e. that the evil must be refuted by some from this Ummah.

This in reality is a disparagement or criticism of the methodology that person has taken, despite that person being (at the present time) considered a Salafi or at least ascribing to Salafiyyah in what is apparent. And this is precisely what Shaykh al-Albaanee has done here. At the same time, that person can no longer be said to be Salafi once the proof is established against him and he continues upon his path, insistent upon his deviation. It is simply a matter of reality and fact that it is not within the knowledge of a given scholar that the proof has been established upon that individual by others from the people of knowledge. Due to these circumstantial reasons, he may maintain that the individual concerned is considered Salafi alongside refuting him and criticising him for his deviations in Manhaj that have appeared. If Abu Usaamah understands the speech of Shaykh al-Albaanee in a way other than this, then we make du'a for his 'aql to be restored. However, this is not a matter of possessing 'aql or not possessing it. Abu Usaamah clearly knows these realities, but he is following his hawaa (desires) and instead asks meaningless, stupid questions to the bamboozle audience such as "So did Shaykh al-Albani make muwaazanaat?!" This type of rhetoric is far-removed from any serious knowledge-based discussion and is simply fooling with the minds of the people, which Abu Usaamah apparently believes he is very skilled at. When a man has years and years of experience in playing the field in the USA and toying with entire communities in more ways than one, then gaming "corny" Brits is a breeze and a walk in the park!

Defending Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahullaah) from the Bespoiled 'Aql of Abu Usaamah

Shaykh al-Albaanee's words regarding Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq are not be considered al-Muwaazanah (as Abu Usaamah very cheaply tries to rhetorically imply as a means of riling up the audience and fooling with their minds) because Shaykh al-Albaanee is mentioning what he knows of the man and his history, i.e. that he was Ikhwaanee, then he became Salafi, was an attentive student at the Jaami'ah, then he went to Kuwait and entered into hizbiyyah, opposed the Salafi Manhaj, whilst all the time Shaykh al-Albaanee withholds from tabdee' (because that requires establishment of the proof and prior to that, a person has not left Salafiyyah and can still be said to be Salafi). Hence, Shaykh al-Albaanee said that "he is Salafi" but "his manhaj is Ikhwaanee", because Shaykh al-Albaanee, like any other Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, is not going to make tabdee' unless he has established the hujjah upon a person or it has come to his knowledge that the hujjah has indeed been established. But to other scholars, who established the proof upon Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, then they declared him to be an innovator. Shaykh al-Albaanee did not criticise them. And this is not to say that 'ijmaa (or consensus) of the scholars is required upon the tabdee' of a person before one can warn against him. That is another false Halabite principle we can deal with in another article, inshaa'Allaah, as well as the claim of some that "the scholars differ, so I'll take my pick". The differing of the scholars is not a proof in the Deen, except for the one who does not know his Deen or follows his desires! Throughout this lecture of Abu Usaamah, one sees him merely following his desires - taking what suits his hawaa and leaving off that which doesn't take his fancy.

Words from Imaam al-Albaanee To Seal the Conniving, Treacherous Tongue of Abu Usaamah Khalifah

Alhamdulillaah, Allaah exposes the conniving liars for what they are, no matter how much they try to embellish their lies with flowery speech. Here then O reader, enjoy reading the following refutation of Shaykh al-Albaanee against Abdullaah Azzaam the Ikhwaanee. Note how Shaykh al-Albaanee also mentions within the course of his refutation some historical positive things about Abdullaah Azzaam (you can access it in audio here):

Of interest is the first paragraph:

Abdullaah Azzaam used to be here, from al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, and after close to seven or eight years, al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen took a resolution to boycott al-Albaanee, boycotting his lessons and boycotting everyone who ascribes to his da'wah. Alongside the knowledge that Abdullaah Azzaam was the only man from amongst al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen who would hardly hear that Shaykh al-Albaanee has a jalsah in such and such house except that he was the first of those present and with him would be a small notebook and a small pen with which he would write summaries. This man (who was) loving (i.e. of al-Albaanee) in truth, when the resolution for boycotting al-Albaanee was made, he never returned to be present with al-Albaanee absolutely.

Then the Shaykh goes on to tell the story of what happened as to how he was slandered by Abdullaah Azzaam in a matter relating to criticism of Sayyid Qutb and how he never retracted from that slander even after the Shaykh pulled him up in person, and eventually Shaykh al-Albaanee referred to such people (as Abdullaah Azzaam) as "Ahl al-Ahwaa."

Now what do we take from this? Just because Shaykh al-Albaaanee mentioned a positive factual detail about Azzaam from a historical perspective, is that considered an actual praise that can be used to flatly contradict the disparagement that follows? That incidental detail is only factual information. Within the context of the speech being made as a whole, it is not intended as a tazkiyah or praise. Rather, it is simply to mention history. Unless of course you are in the twighlight zone of Abu Usaamah. As for those who live in actual reality, then this simply tells us is that Shaykh al-Albaanee is informing us of a historical note about how dedicated al-Azzaam used to be before he fell into bigoted tahazzub and oppression. That's all there is to it. And that's the same with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. He was a dedicated student, from the best of students, and he then entered into bid'ah and dalaalah! Clearly, being from the best of students did not prevent him from being misguided and misguiding others - therein is a great lesson, as Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq was a graduate from the Islamic University of Madinah, yet he deviated away from Salafiyyah, attacked the Scholars, regarded himself to be authority and innovated into the Deen of Allaah.

Proof That Abu Usaamah Has Lost His Intellect ('Aql) For Those Who Missed it Ten Years Ago

The evidence is littered all over the so called "sincere advice" of this kadhaab maftoon, one only need to listen to his confused ramblings:

I'm not here to defend or to support or to prove ash-Shaykh Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is Salafi or not, Ikhwani or not, but the point that I am trying to make is, it's deceipt, its not fair, its not, it's not correct. There are some Shaykhs who said "He is a Mubtadi'" and some Shaykhs who said, "He's not a Mubtadi'". If you ask me my opinion, I don't have an opinion. I did'nt read about the issue.

Does this man even know what he is saying and what comes out of his head? And is his mesmerised audience any wiser? Abu Usaamah confirms some scholars declared Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq to be a Mubtadi'. But he says, he is not interested. It does not concern him because he did not read up on it and he does not have an opinion.

I felt when he got into politics and took Salafis into politics just as is the case in Pakistan with Ahl al-Hadeeth, when Ahl al-Hadeeth went into politics in Pakistan, there are going to be compromises, there are going to be problems because you have to practice those Machiavellian principles, the enemy of my enemy is my friend even if he is a Shi'ite. You have to practice those types of things. You can as hard to practice al-Islaam. I am not here to say "Salafi" or not "Salafi", its not my issue.

In two breaths, one following the other, Abu Usaamah declares himself a confused individual and we have an attentive audience lapping up this man's nonsense. "There are some Shaykhs who said "He is a Mubtadi'" and some Shaykhs who said, "He's not a Mubtadi'". If you ask me my opinion, I don't have an opinion. I did'nt read about the issue..." he says first, then he says, "I felt when he got into politics and took Salafis into politics just as is the case in Pakistan with Ahl al-Hadeeth, when Ahl al-Hadeeth went into politics in Pakistan, there are going to be compromises, there are going to be problems because you have to practice those Machiavellian principles, the enemy of my enemy is my friend even if he is a Shi'ite. You have to practice those types of things...."

So this man knows, but he is playing games. He has been playing these games ever since the fitnah of al-Ma'ribee, pretending to be ignorant, pretending he does not know - yet saying "I don't hold the man (Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee) to be a deviant". He ignored the refutations of Shaikh Rabee' and claimed he was waiting for the "committee" of Madinah, when they refuted al-Ma'rabee, he continued with his desires and treachery. (See the refutation of Abu Uwais - rahimahullaah - on Abu Usaamah al-Kadhdhaab) . So Abu Usaamah knows the reality! But he is a kadhdhab, and one who plays with people, a politician for the unlearned, well-trained through his experiences with communities across the US. Abu Usaamah certainly knows enough that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is upon the destructive path of al-Ikhwaan, and he knows sure enough that Scholars have declared him a Mubtadi'. But as a good "Salafi" da'ee, Abu Usaamah, out in the field of da'wah calling to Sunnah and warning from bid'ah in the right way as he claims, alas, he doesn't have an opinion. He "never looked into the issue." If that is the case, then here is some sincere advice to you Abu Usaamah, and by Allaah, it is more sincere, and more truthful than your claimed "advice" on the night of 25th July ever was:

Abu Usaamah, if you didn't study the matter as you claim, and you don't have an opinion (and we have little reason to believe you are truthful, but let us assume for a moment that you are truthful), and you affirm at least that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq has deviations and you affirm that Scholars declared him a mubtadi' then the best course for you is to stay silent because as you have been informed many times over "silence is golden" (especially in Ramadan). Don't speak about the issue because by your own admittance, you don't have baseerah (insight) in this issue - so your ignorant speech counts for nothing. You don't have an opinion as you claim and your opinion is as worthless as ever - "who told you you have an 'indee?!". Don't sit in front of audiences recording videos spouting nonsense. Be a good little self-admitted ignoramus murji' - with the meaning of one who defers matters claiming to have no opinion despite the fact that evidence is as compelling as the daylight sun.

As for Salafis with whom evidences are established from notable Scholars some of whom that made outright tabdee' - then don't slander those Salafis who narrate from the Scholars, don't revile them or attack them - and that is even if they point out your treachery O Abaa Usaamah! Not even when they point out your treachery to the Salafi Manhaj when you translate for the students of Ikhwani innovator who:

a) legislated into the deen of Allaah that which Allaah gave them no permission,
b) who reviled the Major Scholars calling them "mummified bodies of a long gone age",
c) who innovated in matters of Tawheed and it's categories in order to support the doctrines of Sayyid Qutb,
d) who traversed the earth splitting communities of Salafis in every place,
e) who entered Ikhwan, Tabligh and Hizb ut-Tahreer into the Salafiyyah and the Saved Sect and many other disgraces.

Instead of maligning them and attacking them for your own personal reasons, show an ounce of huumility and honesty and say, "These brothers have strong reasons and proofs for the position they hold and they have many scholars who have evidences for their refutations, criticism (or tabdee'). So these brothers are simply following evidences and the issue ultimately comes down to evidences. And the principle is that the Scholar who has clear, established proof and evidence is a hujjah over the Scholar who has only general knowledge and over one who is (allegedly) without opinion like myself." This is what sincerity demands. And all those scholars we mentioned have provided compelling proof and are collectively a proof in the matter that cannot be denied 'aqlan or shar'an.

There is enough evidence, just in this post alone, to establish that what you were described with, "a treacherous betrayer" could not be more accurate. Inshaa'allaah we will follow up with more points in following posts.

In conclusion, take note dear reader, nowhere does Abu Khadeejah allude that Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) declared Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq to be an innovator, rather, that quote from Shaykh al-Albaanee simply indicates that major scholars (besides Shaykh Muqbil and Shaikh Rabee) recognize that the man is Ikhwani in his manhaj. Anyone who has 'aql (reason) and who reads Abu Khadeejah's post will see that clearly. Abu Usaamah has no shame in blatantly lying to his audience, holding the actual paper in his hand of the blog post which clearly contradicts what he is claiming with his tongue. He shamelessly does not quote the words of Abu Khadeejah, because then his game would be over. Allaahul-Musta'aan such deception, sitting in a house of Allaah in the nights of Ramadaan(!)