Apparently, I Have False Info …
July 30, 2010 12 Comments
… concerning the turmoil and controversy involving Shaikhs Rabî’ al-Madkhalî and Abil-Hasan al-Ma’ribi. Or so claims one brother who thought it was pertinent enough to contact me about it.
A few days ago, while at work, I logged into Gmail to see if I had received any new emails and noticed that I had a chat request from an Adam J. Davidson waiting for me. At first I didn’t recognize the name, but I thought I’d ok the request and see who this person was and what he wanted. The next day, I saw him online and thought I’d send him a message asking him if I knew him; he replied that I didn’t. Checking his Gmail profile, which stated that he’s currently living in Savannah, Georgia in the US, it dawned on me that this was probably the brother posting on SalafiTalk.net (as well as multitudes of other Arabic forums) under the nickname Abu Malik (see his posts containing supposedly disparaging information about brother Abu Taubah of the FIKS—those of you who haven’t checked out Abu Taubah’s stuff, please do so; his stuff’s dope); all doubt was erased when he introduced himself saying, “my name is: Abu Malik Adam John Al Amriki Al Romi.” He asked me where I got the notion that what happened between Shaikhs Rabî’ and Abul-Hasan stemmed from something personal (which I had previously expressed here and here), because apparently, according to him, “this is false info,” that “if [I knew] what was going on [I] would have never said such things,” and that “the statment[sic] [I] made is a statment by Al Halabi and his boys.” I told him that I came to this conclusion through various sources, most of whom are shaikhs, and I explicitly named Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbad, who when asked about the turmoil, explicitly said that Shaikh Rabî’ writing the many numerous essays [he wrote against Abil-Hasan] indicates that there is something personal behind it (his exact words were: “أما قضية الشيخ ربيع والشيخ كون الشيخ ربيع كتب عدة رسائل كثيرة – يعني – هذا يدل على أن في النفوس شيئا”). There is also the incident reported by Shaikh Salîm al-Hilâlî that occurred between he, Shaikh ‘Alî Hasan, and Shaikh Rabî’, which I translated here, but I delibrately did not mention this during my chat with the brother, because I knew that according to the latest concerning Shaikh Salîm, he has turned on his former colleagues in Jordan (Shaikh ‘Alî Hasan in particular), as well as on Shaikhs al-Maghrâwî and Abil-Hasan, and that the brother would probably make mention of it—which he did saying, “alhamedullah Shaikh saleem Made tawbah from all that.” I should point out that even if this is true (i.e., that Shaikh Salîm has “repented” from “all that”, the fact remains that he conveyed an incident concerning something that happened between he and Shaikhs Rabî’ and Alî’ Hasan that strongly indicates that the controversy involving Shaikh Abul-Hasan stemmed from something personal, swore by Allah (which I would like to think actually means something him) on what he said and invoked Allah’s curse on the liars, offering to stand at the sactuary of the Ka’bah to do so (i.e., mubâhalah) at that ; doing so earned him the ire of Shaikh Rabî’ with Shaikh Rabî’ demanding that Shaikh Salîm take back what he said and Shaikh Salîm refusing (which was witnessed first hand by close friends of mine). This, coupled with the fact that currently there is a personal beef (which I pray Allah rectifies) between Shaikh Salîm and his long time colleagues at the Imam al-Albânî Center (such that he has been boycotted by them for quite some time now) tells me that I should disregard any disparagements that he makes against them and others who have some sort of association with them.
In any case, the other day, I posted a comment to my Salafism, Do You Really Get It? post concerning a book I recently came across (thanks to Yusuf). As I mentioned in the comment, the book is by a shaikh named Muhammad bin Muhsin al-Farhânî titled, Naqd Tabaqât al-Hajūrî. I’ve just started reading the book and I’m reading through it pretty slowly (I’m currently only on pg. 35—I should mention, however, that I reformatted the Word document I originally downloaded, changing the page size from A4 to Letter and the font from Traditional Arabic to Lotus Linotype to make things easier to read and print out, which changed the page numbering). He mentions at the very beginning of the book, however, something that I felt I should translate and post here, due to what this brother told me (i.e., that my information is false). The shaikh mentions something that I wasn’t aware of (mainly because I still haven’t read Shaikh Abul-Hasan’s as-Sirâj al-Wahhâj yet) that adds further strength to this so called “notion” that what occurred between Shaikhs Rabî’ and Abul-Hasan stemmed from something personal. Under the heading, “The Cause of the Kindling of the Turmoil”, Shaikh Muhammad al-Farhânî writes (emphasis and bold added),
There had been a group of people attributing themselves to the Sunnah and they had exaggeration, excessiveness, oppression, injustice, and immoderateness regarding the rulings, especially on their brothers from the People of the Sunnah that one could not keep silent about. Our shaikh, Abul-Hasan Mustafâ bin Ismâ’îl as-Sulaimânî al-Ma’ribî had been from those who had spoken about them and removed the curtain from their objectionable path and unhealthy way in hereticating, declaring [others] misguided, and accusing their opponent of falsehood. From that is that in his valuable book, as-Sirâj al-Wahhâj bi Sahîh al-Minhâj, he refuted Shaikh Rabî’ bin Hâdî al-Madkhalî without explicitly mentioning his name in a composed academic manner, and in many sittings, he refuted the irresponsible ones from the blind followers of Shaikh Rabî’; they are those in Yemen who were previously called, “The people of methodology”.
In some of these sittings, there had been a bit of vehemence against them because of the magnitude of their harms. That brought them to bear his anger and hostility. They gathered for him things from some of his tapes and defamed him with them in the towns, the desert [areas], the plains and the mountains. They were not able to do that during the time of our shaikh, Muqbil bin Hâdî al-Wâdi’î—may Allah, exalted is He, have mercy on him—until he could not speak about them and thus scare the people away from them.
Now consider the fact that Shaikh Rabî’, himself had written an “introduction” to as-Sirâj al-Wahhâj, in which he wrote (emphasis added), “These are observations that I am expressing to what our brother, the ‘allâmah, the noble, the salafî, the mujâhid, Abul-Hasan Mustafâ bin Ismâ’îl al-Ma’ribî has established … and by Allah, if I had some flattery I would surely spend it freely for my brother, Abil-Hasan, due to what he has of status with me, but Allah, Islam and the Muslims only willed true, sincere advice … .” How do you think he would react if he found out that the very book he had written an “introduction” for contained a refutation of something he said or did or even some concept or opinion he held?
Add to this the fact that Shaikh Abul-Hasan did not include his introduction in the book or make the changes Shaikh Rabî’ had suggested he make in these observations of his when he had it published. Shaikh Abul-Hasan writes,
The shaikh, himself—may Allah rectify him—asked me one time during one of my visits to him, “Why did you not include my introduction to the book, as-Sirâj al-Wahhâj when you printed it, just like you mentioned some of the [other] introductions?” I informed him that he did not write an introduction, and merely only mentioned a number of observations. Then he pressed me to remove and eliminate the introduction of the esteemed shaikh [and] father, ‘Abdullah al-Jibrîn—may Allah keep him safe and give him and us a good end. Nothing appeared from his words that would make me accept them, so I refused his request.
Now, do you really expect me to believe that all of these things are meaningless or even worse, false bits of information that had no impact on what occurred between the two shaikhs; that everything was purely academic?! Seriously, dude (yes, you, Abu Malik Adam John Al Amriki Al Romi), you’d really have to be completely mad and delusional to think things played no part in it all.