More of al-Abbad’s Words Regarding al-Ma’ribi

Earlier this morning I got a request for Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin’s praise for Shaikh Abul-Hasan and I realized that I hadn’t posted the actual conversation the shaikh had with some questioners in which he said that Shaikh Rabî’ al-Madkhalî’s beef with Shaikh Abul-Hasan was personal. I had to dig through my old draft folders on my HDD, but I found an old translation I did of the conversation, which I had originally found on the now defunct alisteqama.net messageboard. I did some searching with Shaikh Google and was able to find the transcription, along with another statement the shaikh made regarding al-Ma’ribi. Both of these date a bit earlier than the conversation I posted a few months ago; that one dating Wednesday, Rajab 23, 1423H, these two dating Wednesday, Safar 25, 1423H and Thursday, Jumâdâ al-Ūlâ 22, 1423H respectively (to give some frame of reference with the Gregorian calendar, the second date from Jumâdâ al-Ūlâ, corresponds to August 1st, 2002). I tried my best to find the earliest references to these statements as I could. The two I found were posted to almeshkat.net’s forum back in 2002, which predates the original reference I found, which was posted in 2008.

On Wednesday night, Safar 25, 1423H, Shaikh ‘Allâmah ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbâd, may Allah, exalted is He, preserve him, was asked about al-Qâdî ‘Iyâd and an-Nawawî regarding the explanation of the hadîth of the Battle of Hunain: “scum like the scum of the flood.” The shaikh answered with that this phrase is not appropriate and that the Companions are not mentioned except with [what is] beautiful. Then he was asked, may Allah preserve him, [if] this is [to be considered] abuse from al-Qâdî ‘Iyâd and an-Nawawi [that] adds to their Ash’arism; that they are from the Rawâfid. The shaikh said, “No! And may Allah pardon them.”

Then we walked after the class [and] Shaikh ‘Abdur-Razzâq al-‘Abbâd [asked], “Is the one who spoke of the scumminess al-Mâlikî?” Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbâd answered, “No. It was Abul-Hasan.”

Then we were sitting after the class, and Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbâd was asked, “Is this considered abuse of the Companions, even if the one who spoke this word is Abul-Hasan?” The shaikh answered, “His is an error in expression, [it is] inappropriate. And there is a difference between a man from the People of the Sunnah [who] errs in expression; this [person], it is not said about him that he dispraises the Companions, rather, this is an error in expression and it is inappropriate; and between the Râfidî [who] intends the dispraise.” Then it was said to the shaikh that on the internet, it is said about Shaikh Abul-Hasan that he is a filthy Râfidî and that he is a heretic, even one of the shaikhs said, “[He is] a heretic, and will not return to Salafism until the camel passes through the eye of the needle.” Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbâd said, “I seek refuge with Allah!!! I seek refuge with Allah!!! This one who speaks about Abil-Hasan sours the souls. He does not harm except himself.”

Source: almeshkat.net.

On Thursday [afternoon], Jumâdâ al-Ūlâ 22, 1423H, corresponding to August 1st, 2002, some students of knowledge from Masjid Hâ’il in the city Ma’alâ, a province of ‘Aden, called the generous father, ‘Allâmah ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbâd, may Allah, exalted is He, preserve him.

Questioner:

Is the issue of single reports considered from the roots of the People of the Sunnah, which makes whoever opposes it a heretic?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

What?

Questioner:

Is the issue of single reports considered from the roots of the People of the Sunnah, which makes whoever opposes it a heretic?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

Single reports, that which is known is that they are not like the recurrent [narrations] from the aspect of the ruling. However, from the aspect of the deed and from the aspect of the belief, there is no difference between them and the recurrent [narrations].

Questioner:

But if the two are in agreement, that single reports can be acted upon it in matters of creed?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

No doubt, if a person says that they cannot be acted upon in matters of creed, this is the saying of the people of heresies.

Questioner:

But if one says that you can act upon them in matters of creed but that it is not without doubt, then do you consider that this person has opposed a principle from the principles from the People of the Sunnah?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

No … he is not considered to be in opposition.

Questioner:

Not in opposition?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

[Not] ever.

Questioner:

Good. Another issue … if someone says, “The Sunni man, if he has positions or distinct sayings in an issue from the issues of the truth and [that] support the truth and there occurred an ambigous saying from him, and that it could carry this truth and carry what is contrary to it.” So he says, “We do not take his ambiguous saying upon the ill meaning and that he has another obvious saying by the good meaning. And the heretic person whose heresy is known, if we find with him a saying which probably carries heresy and carries other than it, so we take his saying upon what was obvious with him from before–and that is heresy.” So is this saying true or false?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

True. This is true.

Questioner:

This is true. This is what you call, for example, correlating the summarized to the elaborated?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

If true, explicit words are found and ambiguous words are found, you correlate the summarized to the clear. Likewise the opposite, meaning, if they were filthy words and explici, clear, heretic words, then came ambiguous words, you do not say that this, meaning, it outweighs that. So the root is the clear. Rather, we take this upon this, in this and in this … in the two issues … I say, in the two matters, all of it, you take this upon this … I say, surely, the ruling is for the clear, the explicit, be it good or false.

Questioner:

And the condition of the man is recognized, if he was a Sunni, for example?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

I say to you, the words … the words in which there is clarity and in which there is elucidation, and the summarized words that carry in them truth and falsehood, the consideration is the clear and distinct. And likewise the opposite, meaning, if it is clearly and distinctly false and there comes an ambiguous statement, then the ruling is to the clear and apparent … in both situations.

Questioner:

And if the clear words were in another place … from another book … from another tape?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

Even if they were … so long as the man is him, words by a single man one person. So whatever is clear, explicit, true, it is [what is] considered … and whatever is ambiguous is not relied upon.

Questioner:

Good. O Shaikh, what is your view … that is, the boycotting of some of the youth over the likes of these issues, so is this deed permissible?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

No. No. This is wrong.

Questioner:

And they say … that is “that’s it!” and they cut [someone] off. It has even reached … .

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin (interrupting):

No, this is wrong. This is–I say– this is from tribulations … tribulations, which must be avoided.

Questioner:

Meaning these are not considered to be from issues of the People of the Sunnah …

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin (interrupting):

These are from the issues for which the truth of them should be known and misunderstandings and tribulations [should not] arise.

Questioner:

Good. O Shaikh, something remains. It was transmitted from you on the internet that you gave insight to the persistence of Shaikh Rabî’, may Allah preserve him, you said, that is, regarding it, that which is between Shaikh Abul-Hasan and Shaikh Rabî’ are things within the souls, so is it the likes of this correct or not?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

Transmitted where?

Questioner:

On the internet.

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

Yes.

Questioner:

You said that if Shaikh Rabî’ was occupied with replying to the enemies of Islam, it would certainly be more deserving.

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

Correct.

Questioner:

And that what is between them are things in the souls.

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

I say that to me, occupying himself (words unclear). As for the matter of Shaikh Rabî’ and the shaikh, the occurrence of Shaikh Rabî’ [having] written a great number of essays, that is, this indicates that there is something in the souls.

Questioner:

That in the souls is something?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

Yes.

Questioner:

Because he has reached the extent of heresy … that he is more filthy … that he is evil …

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin (interrupting):

May Allah rectify the situations.

Questioner:

But is that your belief concerning Abil-Hasan?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

What?

Questioner:

But are these words your belief concerning Shaikh Abil-Hasan?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

Which words?

Questioner:

That he, that is, that Abul-Hasan has reached a degree that he is classified to be from the people of heresies?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

No. No. He is not classified. Certainly, in somethings–that is, he was reviewed for and he recanted from them.

Questioner:

And the praise is Allah’s, he returned to the likes he was …

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

The thing that (words unclear).

Questioner:

Is your assumption about him that he returns to the truth?

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin:

By Allah, [what is] clear is that if something occurs from him and he recognizes the truth, then surely he will return to it.

Questioner:

Yes. [In any case,], may Allah reward you with good, O Shaikh, and I ask Allah that he preserves you. Peace be upon you.

 Source: almeshkat.net.

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.

11 Responses to More of al-Abbad’s Words Regarding al-Ma’ribi

  1. Vince says:

    As salaamu alaikum.. I’ve heard for years that the problem between the two were personal. Does anyone know what it possibly could have been to create such a fitnah?

  2. abu-subay'ah says:

    wa ‘alaykum salaam wa rahmatullah, Vince it basically boiled down to a person not doing what his senior told him to do. not towing the line and being refuted because of it. shaykh saleem al-Hilaali told the story years ago about why all of this was happening. I believe our brother Rasheed posted that speech on this very blog. look for a title regarding “manhood” by shaykh saleem al-hilaali on this blog and you will find what im speaking about.

  3. Wa ‘alaikum as-salam wa rahmatullah, Vince.

    In addition to what Abu Subay’ah mentioned, there’s also a book by a shaikh named Muhammad bin Muhsin al-Farhânî titled, Naqd Tabaqât al-Hajūrî, which criticizes some of the things Shaikh Yahya al-Hajūrî mentions in his book, at-Tabaq²t, which is supposed to be a history of what went on in Yemen, which lead upto the whole Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribî controversy. You should be able to find this book (in Arabic of course) on Dar al-Hadith Ma’rib’s website; I’m not sure if it’s on Abul-Hasan’s personal website.

    I translated a portion of what’s written at the beginning of the book (I never got around to reading the whole thing though) and posted some of the information indicating the reasons and causes for why Shaikh Rabî’ went to hard at Shaikh Abul-Hasan. You can find that stuff in my post titled, “Apparently, I Have False Info …“. The statement made by Shaikh Salîm al-Hilâlî has a link to it in this blog post.

  4. Vince says:

    When i was in Egypt some years back and one of the two westerners that still sat with Sheikh Usaams,he mentioned that it was personal. I remember that he said that it started with Sheikh Magraawi. When Sheikh Abul-Hasan refused to criticize him,Sheikh Rabee began to criticize Abul-Hasan. Then Rabee told the ashyaakh of Jordon to criticize Abul-Hassan which they didnt want to do. So Sheikh Usaama said that Sheikh Rabee said to them “if you dont criticize him,I will criticize you.” Allah’s help is sought

  5. Vince says:

    Another point that Sheikh Usaama mentioned that is interesting is that most if not all of the shuyook that many of the salafees look to as major scholars are not. He said that they were elevated to those levels for simply agreeing with Sheikh Rabee. To me, the proof of this is that most of them are unknown is Saudia(I live in Saudia). You don’t find any books or lectures of these people. If you ask about them,no one knows who they are except a serious student of knowledge and then only vaguely. Another proof for me was that I actually met Sheikh Muhammad Al-Banna,Allah yarhamhu(I was friends with Sheikh Hasan Al-Banna and was invited to meet his brother when he was on vacation in Egypt). By this time I was speaking Arabic and had some basic understanding of the deen. I and another brother found him not to be to the level of Sheikh Usaama in knowledge. An example of what I mean was that he was asked by a brother would the individual as well as the deeds of the individual be weighed on the day of judgement. He tugged at his chin and told the brother “would a salafee ask this question?”. This point was taught to us by Sheikh Usaama and is mentioned in the books of aqeedah…

  6. That’s not the first time I’ve heard someone familiar with these particular scholars say that Shaikh Usamah al-Qusi is more knowledgeable than Shaikh Muhammad bin ‘Abdil-Wahhab al-Banna, may Allah have mercy on him, (and his brother Shaikh Hasan as well).

    I’m a bit foggy with some of the earlier controversies, but I recall Shaikh ‘Adnan ‘Ar’ur being attacked and criticized around 1999-2000 or sometime around then. Was the controversy with Shaikh Muhammad al-Maghrawi before or after this?

  7. Vince says:

    To be honest, I don’t really know who Sheikh Magraawi is or was outside of the fact that he was from Maghrib or for that matter Abul-Hassan. And this is the stupidity that I could never understand;involving people with others and issues that they would never have otherwise encountered. Then the fall out is what we’ve seen and worse(some people actually leaving Islam). And being even more honest, I’m blame some of the ulema for this because they didnt have the foresight to see where all of this could lead. Having foresight is essential for a scholar. I do remember Sheikh Adnan and actually met him when he came to the States for a QSS camp in 1998,I think. Then there was talk of some sort about him just before I left the States in 2001. And here it is again that instead of focusing on issues that are important to the locales where we live,we focus on or are made to focus on issues that are halfway around the world. Subhanallah,how many brothers have I seen latch on to this foolishness and remain in the same condition for years while others left it behind and gained a considerable amount of knowledge(of course they were boycotted for doing so). Allah’s help is sought.

    By the way Rasheed, I think you are doing a fabulous job,man. May Allah bless you…

  8. May Allah reward and bless you for your kind words, bro. May Allah not take me to account for what others say, forgive me for what they do not know of me, and make me better than what they assume of me.

  9. babatunde Yousuph says:

    hmm..following with keen interest

  10. Vince says:

    There’s another point that Sheikh Usaama mentioned that’s kind of interesting; that instead of there being a problem between Abul-Hasan and Sheikh Muqbil,there may have actually been a problem between Sheikh Muqbil and Yahya Hajooree.

    He said that when he was a student in Dammaj,Yahya Hajooree approached him to speak on his behalf to Sheikh Muqbil about starting a newletter or magazine,something like that. So Sheikh Usaama approached Sheikh Muqbil about it for Yahya. He said that when he mentioned it,Sheikh Muqbil sort of grimmaced and told him to forget about the whole affair. He said at the time he thought it was strange but didn’t pay much attention to it. It was only after this whole ordeal with Abul-Hasan that he remembered Sheikh Muqbil’s reaction and began to think that there was something much deeper than Sheikh Muqbil’s let on..

  11. Judging by what’s mentioned in Shaikh Muqbil’s final will and testament, along with what Muhammad bin Muhsin al-Farhani mentions at the beginning of his book, Naqd Tabaqat al-Hajuri, I’d guess you’re right about the problem being between Shaikhs Muqbil and Yahya, not Muqbil and Abul-Hasan.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: