Abu Talhah Dawud Burbank and his Wife have Died

[Abu.Iyaad]

Back in the early 90s, in the days of JIMAS, Abu Talhah (rahimahullaah) was the one who was providing the knowledge, and I remember that whenever any issue came up of jurisprudence or otherwise, we would see Abu Talhah's distinctive, impeccable handwritten translations, that would be passed around. I am certain there are literally hundreds, if not scores of people up and down the country who will have in their possession the handwritten responses of Abu Talhah for he used to respond to people in writing through the post. In those days, Abu Muntasir (JIMAS) was really riding on the back of Abu Talhah's efforts from a knowledge point of view, as he was the person with real knowledge, and he was always in the background. As for JIMAS, for those who are in the know and have baseerah, it was a hizbee organization upon the doctrines of Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Khaliq who combined democracy and pluralism with Islam, and followed the ways of Hasan al-Banna in attempting to unite the sects of Islam under one huge mass and then use the ways and methodologies of non-Muslims to establish the Haakimiyyah of Allaah upon the earth (as they claim), following two simultaneous tracks, either to effect revolutions, first through ideological means, hoping by that to effect physical revolutions and second to use whatever political apparatus already existed within a nation as a means to climb to the throne of power. Any connection to Salafiyyah and assertion of a Salafi creed was largely academic (i.e. it never trascended above and beyond mere academic discussion). What we saw after 1990 was a revival of the methodologies of Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, both of which were founded upon the assumption of the absence of any Muslim society on the face of this earth, which implied generalized mass takfir. In the West, JIMAS, those associated with it and their counterpart organizations in the US were pushing these methodologies. Just prior to the mid-90s saw the split away from this nominal type of Salafiyyah. In the West, Abu Talhah (rahimahullaah) played an instrumental role in that regard through his efforts of supporting and defending the manhaj of Imaam Ibn Baaz, Imaam al-Albani, Imaam Ibn Uthaymeen, Imaam Muqbil, and the rest of the Mashaayikh of Salafiyyah, from them Shaykh Rabee, and Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan and others. He was instrumental in translating and disseminating from the works of those great scholars to show the difference between what these Scholars were upon and what the Harakiyyeen were upon. In this decade there was great confusion but by its end walhamdulillaah, all of the major Scholars who were alive had convicted the figureheads who were pushing these ideologies, and the truth became manifest. Prior to this, the Harakiyyeen had a trend of using certain statements from the major scholars (which had history and context), in order to put up a defence for themselves and their figureheads, but that was no longer sustainable after a certain point. This was when all the major scholars, Albani, Bin Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen had statements (by the year 2000) which clearly convicted the main figureheads of this movement. When the deceptive use of the earlier commendations of these scholars for those errant figureheads proved of little utility, and the Harakiyyoon were hard-pressed to find answers as to why Albani, Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymin (in particular) had strong criticisms of them (by the end of the decade), these Harakiyyeen started a trend of accusing these sames Scholars (Albani, Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymin etc.) of being "revisionists," claiming they had departed from what the earlier scholars were upon in certain fields such as takfir, and da'wah and islaah, and were revising these fields to something new and unknown. If you are a person in the West who is upon Salafiyyah, I can say without any hesitation and with full conviction that you will have benefited in some way from the writings of Abu Talhah, or from his books, in the fields of aqidah, or manhaj, or fiqh or tafsir. And you should be grateful to Allaah first and then thankful to Abu Talhah that you were saved from the hamaaqah (foolishness) of the Harakiyyeen, in one way or another, or to some degree or other (through the clarifications in methodology). I see no difference between the hamaaqah (foolishness) of the Ahl al-Kalaam who thought they could establish Tawhid (as they understood it) by the conceptual tools of Greek Philosophy, and between the Harakiyyeen of today who think they can establish Tawhid (as in al-Haakimiyyah, upon their narrow constricted understanding) by the ideological and practical tools of Western philosophies (represented in the approaches of Banna and Qutb) whilst shunning the methodology of the Prophets in calling to Allaah. It's too boring and dry for them, just as the revealed texts were too boring and dry for the Ahl al-Kalaam, a hindrance more than an advancement. In the same way, following the methodology of the Prophets in calling to Allaah is a hindrance rather than an advancement to these people, as their actions clearly give testimony to. But the main point in this post was to say that alhamdulillaah, I have not seen except good remarks from all directions and quarters for Abu Talhah. I have not seen negative remarks or statements from anyone thus far (with one exception) and everyone has asked for mercy upon him and his family, has acknowledged his virtue and excellence and even from the opposers are those who acknowledge that they have benefited from him and his works, and they have nothing but good to say. However one remark was brought to my attention yesterday, which I would like to address in order to exonerate the honour of our brother Abu Talhah (rahimahullaah), and this will be done on an appropriate platform in due course inshaa'Allaah.