They Mention Some, But Not the Rest
May 26, 2010 9 Comments
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’ as–Sirât 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 salafitalk.net poster who posted a couple of links to the sahab.net 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 salafitalk.net’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.