They Mention Some, But Not the Rest

Here’s another look at the intellectual and academic dishonesty committed by the exaggerators from among those who attribute themselves to Salafism, They Mention Some, But Not the Rest: Yet Another Example of Academic Dishonesty From the Self-Appointed Vanguards of Salafism. From the article:

In his Iqtidâ’ asSirât al-Mustaqîm, Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, relates that “’Abdur-Rahman bin Mahdî and others said [that] the people of knowledge write what is for them and what is against them, while the people of desires do not write except what is for them.”

Despite the fact that these people go on about the gravity of hiding knowledge and information from the public, looking at their behaviour, we find innumerable examples that give credence to what Shaikh of Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, mentions. I wrote about one such example recently in an article I titled, Making Moosaa’s Mountain Out Of Bilal’s Molehill, in which I pointed out the intellectual and academic dishonesty displayed by Moosaa Richardson in his criticism of a supposedly “dangerous mistake” he accused Dr. Bilal Philips of making in one of his published books.

The other week, I came across yet another example of academic dishonesty, which these people continually display time and time again. This time, the example comes from a poster who posted a couple of links to the Arabic discussion forum. The poster simply posts the links and provides a brief description before each, both in Arabic and in English; the first: “The support of ash-Shaykh Muhammad Bazmool for the critique of his brother ash-Shaykh Ahmad on Ali al-Halabee,” and the second: “Ash-Shaykh Muhammad Bazmool: The Refutations of ash-Shaykh Ahmad Bazmool denotes that al-Halabi has deviated from the Manhaj of the Salaf.” Now, given the fact that many of’s readers are English speakers who don’t know much Arabic—if any at all—there’s a good chance that none of them will actually come to know what’s contained in the two links. Despite that, the poster doesn’t provide his audience with a translation, summarized or otherwise, of what’s mentioned in the two posts. The result, of course, is that the readers are left with the obvious impression he and the previous posters to the thread (e.g., Maaz Qureshi or whoever it is posting under the name “SunnahPublishing.Net”) wishes their audience to get: ‘Alî al-Halabî is a deviant who has strayed from the Salafî methodology and should be avoided like the plague.

Read on … They Mention Some, But Not the Rest: Yet Another Example of Academic Dishonesty From the Self-Appointed Vanguards of Salafism.


About Rasheed Gonzales
My name is Rasheed Gonzales. I’m a Muslim convert of Filipino descent. Born and raised in Toronto, Canada, I was guided to Islam through one of my younger brothers and a couple of friends, all of whom had converted to Islam sometime before me (may Allah reward them greatly). I am married with four children (and the praise is Allah’s) and also a volunteer for the Qur'an & Sunnah Society of Canada, based in Toronto.

9 Responses to They Mention Some, But Not the Rest

  1. Subhanallah.. where are their adaab towards their scholars?

    Btw akhee, may i post this on my blog?

  2. Sure you can.

  3. Aboo Yoosuf says:

    May Allah reward you brother for the translation of the script and for the justness you have shown in your post.

    I just want to add that, some of these people of exaggerators have not only removed the honorific title “Shaykh” before Ali al-Halabi’s name, they address Ali al-Halabi as “Ali al-Halabi al-Miskeen”! Add to that, some of the extremes have invented a supposedly deviant group by the name of “Halabiyyoon” and such extremism can be found in the internet, such as in youtube, from those who claim to be adherents to Salafiyyah, not those who openly criticise Salafis as Talafis, Madkhalis and the likes.

    Also, as you rightly touched on it, it is not a big deal if one is addressing someone from Ahlul ‘Ilm by his kunyah or nasab, such as Ibn Hajr or Ibn Taymiyyah, without saying Imam or Hafidh before their names, it certainly is a big deal when a person is addressing someone from Ahlul ‘Ilm without respecting him in order to belittle him or to throw him out of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, wAllaahul musta’aan.

    1. How would the exaggerators feel if someone were to address Shaykhana Yahya al-Hajuri hafidhahullah as “Yahya as-Safeeh i.e. Yahya the-idiot” (which is what Shaykhana Ubayd hafidhahullah referred to Sh Yahya as)? Or how would the exaggerators feel if someone were to address them as “Madkhalis” just as some of the exaggerators refers the Salafis as “Halabis”?! Allahul musta’an.

    2. Many criticise some of the Muslim forums where some of the Shuyookhs are shown disrespect and defamed, such as defaming Sh Ubayd al-Jabiri, so how about those forums that defame Sh al-Allamah Ihsan Ilahi Zaheer rahimahullah? How about those who refer Sh al-Halabi, Sh Mashhoor, Sh Saleem and others with utter disrespect, when they have all been referred as “Allamahs and Shaykhs” by even those who refuted them on some issues?

    May Allah have mercy on al-Hafidh Ibn Asakir rahimahullah when he said, “Whoever unleashes his tongue against the ‘Ulama, then Allah will put him to test before he dies”.

    And may Allah preserve and reward the present Muhaddith of Madeenah, Abdul Muhsin al-Abbad, when he said, “Surely from what one regrets in this time is what occurred of alienation and differing from some of the People of the Sunnah; from what was caused by some of them being occupied with disparaging, cautioning [against], and boycotting others. The obligation was that their efforts be collectively directed at others from the disbelievers and the People of Heresies hostile to the People of the Sunnah; that they be mutually affectionate and compassionate with regards to what is between them, mentioning one other with gentleness and leniency.”

    And “This one who is criticising (referring to the fallen Falih al-Harbi who wages harb against Ahlus Sunnah) does not reach the ankles of some of those he criticises because of the abundant benefit in their lessons, lectures and writings.” (Rifqan Ahlus Sunnah bi Ahlus Sunnah)

    Woe to those who are not even from the smaller students of knowledge (the ones in the West) and they speak of our Shuyookh like they are speaking about Jahm ibn Safwan! Woe to those who claim that they are upon the manhaj of the ‘Ulama, yet much of their hatred and anger is towards some of the People of Sunnah that they consider Ahlul Ahwa! May Allah guide you and us to the Straight Path. ameen.

  4. I just noticed that about two weeks ago (on Sept. 10), Sajid Chauhan (sajid_chauhan _81 on SalafiTalk) posted the following link: to the post I referred to in footnote no. 18 on pg. 7 of my above article, which was taken from my translation of Shaikh Farkus’s answer (albeit with some alterations, of course, but it’s quite obvious that it’s my work that the guys running Shaikh Farkus’s site used).

    So much for not using material translated by people of innovation.

  5. Here’s something funny. One of the few active posters on bumped this post titled, “What did Sheikh Mohamed bazmool Say about Halabi & his friends”, which contains the following quote from Shaikh Muhammad Bazmul (emphasis added):

    The way those brothers are taking (Ali Al Halabi & Salim Al Hilali) it is inappropriate, we did not think that this would be their reaction, I wished that they would present them selves [sic] as for what they are students not scholars … .

    The obvious implication here that these exaggerators and detractors of Shaikh Ali Hasan want their audience to understand is that Shaikh Ali Hasan and his colleagues in Jordan (including their former colleague Shaikh Salim al-Hilali) are not actually scholars, but merely students.

    Considering what Shaikh Muhammad says in the article I translated for this post, namely his statement,
    “… Shaikh Ali is surely in the status of my shaikhs, he is tremendous in my heart, beloved to my heart … ,” I wonder where that puts Shaikh Muhammad in the pecking order of scholars and supposedly “not scholars” … .

  6. بن شريف says:

    السلام عليكم

    I saw some statements being attributed to Shaykh ‘Alee Hasan (they were referred to as ‘Halabian’ principles) and I’d appreciate it very much if you could ascertain whether it is actually correct (to ascribe it to him) or not.

    First ‘Halabi’ Principle – is that he made ijmaa’ a condition for accepting the jarh of an individual

    Do any of the ‘Ulamaa (past or present) hold this position? Or it is another issue in which the ‘Ulamaa have differed but one position is made to seem like the ‘correct’ position?

    And secondly – and it was called a ‘principle’ but it seems to be more of a comment – that salafiyyah in the west is only rudood.

    I know you’re familiar with the Shaykh’s works so please comment inshaAllaah!

    زادك الله في كل جير

  7. Wa ‘alaikum as-salam wa rahmatullah,

    According to what I’ve found from Shaikh Google, I’ll venture and say that these claims were made by Musa Millington. I personally haven’t come across instances where Shaikh Ali Hasan has said these things. For arguements sake, however, let’s assume that Shaikh Ali Hasan has made comments of this nature. I don’t think it would be too big of a stretch to say that these retards are taking what he said out of context as they’ve done with countless other statements from other individuals; such is their tradition and “sunnah”. I can point out specific examples where they’ve claimed that such and such is an Ar’uri principle or a Ma’ribi principle only to see the very same idea or concept being explained by other scholars whose very statements explaining them are used by these guys use to refute said false principles!

  8. أبو من؟ says:

    A quick answer to Bin Shareef:

    First ‘Halabi’ Principle – is that he made ijmaa’ a condition for accepting the jarh of an individual

    No, actually what he said is that you can only make it incumbent on a person to accept (or act on) a disparagement if there’s ijmaa’. The issue is about “ilzaam” not “qabool”.
    That accusation though is straight out of Ahmad Bazmul’s “refutation” though.

    In that “refutation” he quotes this from al-halabee:

    فَكُلُّ (!) مَنْ جَرَح شَخْصاً نَرَاهُ يلْزِمُ الآخَرِينَ بِهِ؛ بحِجَّة أنَّ جَرَحُه -لَهُ-
    مُفَّسٌر، وَأنَّه (وَاجِبٌ) قَبُولُ الَجرْحِ الُمفَسَّر!!!
    مَعَ أَنَّ الأمَرَ لَيْسَ بِهذِهِ السُّهُولَةِ -َكمَا قْد يَتصَوَّرُه -َأوْ يصَوِّرُه- البَعْضُ
    and this:
    ثم موقف عامة الطلبة إذا أجمع أهل العلم على تبديع واحد لا يسعهم أن يخالفوه

    Then interprets that to mean this:
    لا يثبت الجرح إلا بالإجماع
    لا يبدَّع إلا من أجمع العلماء على تبديعه

    Maybe I need to go back and study Arabic, cause I don’t know how this (what Bazmul says) can be understood from that (what ali hasan says)!
    اللهم أبعدنا عن الأهواء وقنا من شر النفس الأمارة بالسوء!

    And secondly – and it was called a ‘principle’ but it seems to be more of a comment – that salafiyyah in the west is only rudood.

    Not worth comment.

  9. ابن شريف says:

    Speaking about academic dishonesty (or academic incompetence?), even though it was May, 2010…check this one out. A bro on one of the forums (trinimuslims to be exact) posted a video from Sh.Fawzaan wherein he says leave off saying ‘I am salafi’, making the point that maybe the name ‘salafi’ should be withdrawn. That’s because in T&T, likewise in the rest of West I assume, the salafis have a sordid reputation and as soon as a muslim hears ‘salafi’, they run from it (maybe literally sometimes). This was of course, met with..well…you can imagine. Famous quotes from famous ‘Ulamaa speaking about the permissibilty of using the word. Eventually though, the hukm was made to look obligatory with a statement of shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah):

    “From the signs of the people of Innovation is to leave of ascribing to the Salaf.”

    No reference to the statement, no source.
    the statement is found in Majmoo’ul Fataawaa, Volume 4 pg 155. Here it is in arabic:

    وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةُ أَيْضًا تُفَسِّقُ مِنْ الصَّحَابَةِ وَالتَّابِعِينَ طَوَائِفَ وَتَطْعَنُ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنْهُمْ وَفِيمَا رَوَوْهُ مِنْ الْأَحَادِيثِ الَّتِي تُخَالِفُ آرَاءَهُمْ وَأَهْوَاءَهُمْ بَلْ تُكَفِّرُ أَيْضًا مَنْ يُخَالِفُ أُصُولَهُمْ الَّتِي انْتَحَلُوهَا مِنْ السَّلَفِ وَالْخَلَفِ فَلَهُمْ مِنْ الطَّعْنِ فِي عُلَمَاءِ
    المعدلة ) – (4 / 155)
    السَّلَفِ وَفِي عِلْمِهِمْ مَا لَيْسَ لِأَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَالْجَمَاعَةِ . وَلَيْسَ انْتِحَالُ مَذْهَبِ السَّلَفِ مِنْ شَعَائِرِهِمْ وَإِنْ كَانُوا يُقَرِّرُونَ خِلَافَةَ الْخُلَفَاءِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ . وَيُعَظِّمُونَ مِنْ أَئِمَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَجُمْهُورِهِمْ مَا لَا يُعَظِّمُهُ أُولَئِكَ فَلَهُمْ مِنْ الْقَدْحِ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنْهُمْ مَا لَيْسَ هَذَا مَوْضِعَهُ . ” وَلِلنَّظَّامِ ” مِنْ الْقَدْحِ فِي الصَّحَابَةِ مَا لَيْسَ هَذَا مَوْضِعَهُ . وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَسْبَابِ انْتِقَاصِ هَؤُلَاءِ الْمُبْتَدِعَةِ لِلسَّلَفِ مَا حَصَلَ فِي الْمُنْتَسِبِينَ إلَيْهِمْ مِنْ نَوْعِ تَقْصِيرٍ وَعُدْوَانٍ وَمَا كَانَ مِنْ بَعْضِهِمْ مِنْ أُمُورٍ اجْتِهَادِيَّةٍ الصَّوَابُ فِي خِلَافِهَا فَإِنَّ مَا حَصَلَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ صَارَ فِتْنَةً لِلْمُخَالِفِ لَهُمْ : ضَلَّ بِهِ ضَلَالًا كَبِيرًا : فَالْمَقْصُودُ هُنَا : أَنَّ الْمَشْهُورِينَ مِنْ الطَّوَائِفِ – بَيْنَ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَالْجَمَاعَةِ – الْعَامَّةِ بِالْبِدْعَةِ لَيْسُوا مُنْتَحِلِينَ لِلسَّلَفِ بَلْ أَشْهَرُ الطَّوَائِفِ بِالْبِدْعَةِ : الرَّافِضَةُ حَتَّى إنَّ الْعَامَّةَ لَا تَعْرِفُ مِنْ شَعَائِرِ الْبِدَعِ إلَّا الرَّفْضَ وَالسُّنِّيَّ فِي اصْطِلَاحِهِمْ : مَنْ لَا يَكُونُ رافضيا . وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُمْ أَكْثَرُ مُخَالَفَةً لِلْأَحَادِيثِ النَّبَوِيَّةِ وَلِمَعَانِي الْقُرْآنِ وَأَكْثَرُ قَدْحًا فِي سَلَفِ الْأُمَّةِ وَأَئِمَّتِهَا وَطَعْنًا فِي جُمْهُورِ الْأُمَّةِ مِنْ جَمِيعِ الطَّوَائِفِ فَلَمَّا كَانُوا أَبْعَدَ عَنْ مُتَابَعَةِ السَّلَفِ كَانُوا أَشْهَرَ بِالْبِدْعَةِ .
    فَعُلِمَ أَنَّ شِعَارَ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ : هُوَ تَرْكُ انْتِحَالِ اتِّبَاعِ السَّلَفِ . وَلِهَذَا قَالَ الْإِمَامُ أَحْمَدُ فِي رِسَالَةِ عبدوس بْنِ مَالِكٍ : ” أُصُولُ السُّنَّةِ عِنْدَنَا التَّمَسُّكُ بِمَا كَانَ عَلَيْهِ أَصْحَابُ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ

    It looks to me very clearly that the issue the Shaykh is discussing here is not ascribing oneself to the Salaf by using the word ‘salafi’. In fact, due to the word ‘Ittibaa’ being present and the context of Imaam Ahmad’s statement after ‘the usool of the Sunnah with is are: Holding on to what the Companions were upon…’, the issue is more about ittibaa’ of the Salaf than ascription to them.

    And as a few brothers said to me, even if were to be plausibly argued that this was intent here i.e. anyone who doesn’t call himself ‘salafi’ is showing signs of the people of innovation, then why didn’t we see Ibn Taymiyyah As-Salafi, or Ibnul Qayyim As-Salafi, or Ibn Baz As-Salafi or indeed Sh.Rabee’ As-Salafi etc?

    So it is unfortunate to me (in my opinion here) that this statement is being used as another bullying tactic, wAllaahul Musta’aan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: