     Anonymous | Wednesday, March 07, 2001 - 04:21 am
A Teaser from ‘al-Hadd al-Faasil’
And then to give you a small sample of the reply of Shaikh Rabee’ in ‘al-Hadd al-Faasil’ to the four pages that have become the
debris that the drowning Qutubi reaches for, we leave you with the following:
All the points below are derived from ‘Al-Hadd al-Fasil bain al-Haqq wal-Batil’ (1st edition):
1. The Shaikh speaks directly to Shaikh Bakr Abu Zaid informing him that the four page letter that he had written dated
20/1/1414H had actually been received by him on 14/9/1414H, which is seven months and twenty-four days after it had been
written. And also that he had not received it directly from the Shaikh himself, but through the biased partisans, the Qutubis and
their brothers from amongst the straying Innovators. (p.3)
2. The Shaikh states that it is an extremely sad story that the likes of Shaikh Bakr who had aided the Sunnah and had waged
Jihad against the Innovators with his works, and who had aforetime refuted the likes of Abu Ghuddah and as-Saboonee, has now
come out to defend the Innovators with his writings, the first of which was his book ‘Laa Jadeed fis-Salaat’, and then ‘Tasneef
un-Naas’ and then finally this little letter of his, which was worse than what came before it. (p.4-5)
3. The Shaikh said, that he refrained from refuting Shaikh Bakr due to these writings of his, despite the fact that he was
requested by some of the Mashayikh to do so – and instead he told them that Shaikh Bakr is our brother and is from amongst
us and that they ought to have patience. He also explains that he had scolded Shaikh Bakr in the Shaikh’s own study in Taif
who subsequently said that he did not actually intend this or that with his writings (i.e. the first two works mentioned above)
and that he promised that he will soon issue a clarification that those whom he intended by his writings were not from Ahl
us-Sunnah. But, as Shaikh Rabee’ notes, he did not fulfil his promise, despite his knowledge that the mischief-makers amongst
the biased-partisans and Qutubis, the helpers of the people of Innovation were using his works to attack Ahl us-Sunnah. (p.6)
4. The Shaikh then notes that Shaikh Bakr’s four page letter completely lack any knowledge and any display of the mannerisms
of the Scholars when they reply on a firm knowledge-based basis. And secondly, that Shaikh Bakr had depended merely upon
generalisations and absolutions, without going into any detail, or actually quoting any of the contested texts from Sayyid Qutb.
(p.7)
5. Then the Shaikh mentions that he did not wish to write his current work in refutation of Shaikh Bakr, and due to this he
actually phoned up Shaikh Bakr and asked him about this letter of his, whether he had written it or whether someone else had
written them. And that if he had written them, then he ought to apologise and if it was someone else, then he ought to free
himself from it publicly. The Shaikh said he granted Shaikh Bakr two weeks to respond to this request. After this, a number of
the people of knowledge got in touch with Shaikh Bakr in order to encourage him to recant, and amongst them Shaikh Salih
al-Fawzan, Shaikh Zaid Muhammad Haadee, and Shaikh Ali Hasan. When all of this failed and when the evil effects of the
writings of Shaikh Bakr had become apparent – from that which was witnessed in the Saudi Kingdom, Kuwait, the Emirates,
Qatar, Algeria and elsewhere – and after the Shaikh’s time was taken upon in phone calls from everywhere, he saw that it was
necessary to refute this letter and to make the truth manifest. (p.8)
6. The Shaikh mentions that he sent his book ‘Adwaa Islaamiyyah ‘alaa ‘Aqidah Sayyid Qutb wa Fikrihi’ to numerous people
of knowledge, amongst them Shaikh ‘Abdul-Aziz bin Baz, Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen, Shaikh Salih al-Fawzan, Shaikh al-Albani,
Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbad amongst numerous others – including Shaikh Bakr himself. He did this with the hope that
they might pick out any errors and offer their advice, because of the reason that all of the sons of Aadam err, and it may have
been possible for him to have fallen into error on some matters. The result of all of that was that where was very strong support
from numerous scholars for his work and that every Salafi rejoiced with the book.(p.11-12)
7. The Shaikh reminds Shaikh Bakr how he himself had said to him that he had been given the book ‘az-Zilal’ (the tafsir of
Sayyid Qutb) whilst on one of his journeys, yet he did not bother reading it and instead put it on the shelf, where it had
remained since that time. And Shaikh Rabee’ also reminds Shaikh Bakr about his own words in the letter of his, "I seek your
apologies for the delay in my response since I had not previously had any engagement in reading the books of this man, despite
the fact that they are distributed amongst the people". (p.21)
8. Shaikh Rabee’ reminds Shaikh Bakr that his book refuting Sayyid Qutb was read by many persons of knowledge, who are far
superior than him in knowledg, perception and cognisance, yet none of them showed the rejection he showed. And he stated that
many of these phoned him directly, from within and outside of the Kingdom to express their thanks and commendations for this
work.(p.26)
9. Shaikh Rabee’ reminds Shaikh Bakr, that in light of what he has written in his letter, it is necessary for Shaikh Bakr himself
to repent and show remorse for writing his refutations against Abu Ghuddah (who reviled Ibn Taymiyyah) and as-Saaboonee
(who denied and distorted the Attributes of Allaah in the way of the Ash’ariyyah). [In fact, his need to repent in this regard is
greater since the mistakes and errors of these two do not even come near to the level of those of Qutb]. (p.30)
10. The Shaikh reminds Shaikh Bakr that he had finished writing his book ‘Adwaa Islaamiyyah’ right at the end of
Dhul-Qa’ada 1413 (around 26/11/1413H). Then after a short while, just prior to the days of Hajj, he sent the book to the people
of knowledge, amongst the Shaikh Bakr himself. He then waited a while but the reply of Shaikh Bakr to acknowledge receipt of
the book was not forthcoming. So the Shaikh says that he rang up Shaikh Bakr and asked whether he had received it or not, the
reply being that he had not received it. So then Shaikh Rabee’ asked Shaikh Bakr’s brother, to send the book the Shaikh Bakr
again. After this the Shaikh says that he cannot be certain as to when exactly Shaikh Bakr actually received the book, or when
he read it and when he had time or complete it or when he had time to read it many times over and also perform his research as
he claimed. This is because the letter of Shaikh Bakr in reply to Shaikh Rabee’ is dated 20/1/1414H so this gives very little
time for Shaikh Bakr to have researched properly (no more than 4 weeks maximum). And this seems evident since Shaikh Bakr
himself admits that he only read two sections from two chapters (of Shaikh Rabee’s book). So Shaikh Rabee’ states that what
the Shaikh is claiming (of numerous readings and research) does not seem plausible and seems unusual, unless he read all the
books of Sayyid Qutb like the Soofee who claimed he read the Qur’an 70,000 times whilst doing tawaf?! (p.119-120)
11. The Shaikh mentions that along with his son, Ahmad, he met up with Shaikh Bakr in Madinah. With the Shaikh was
someone else, perhaps his eldest son. In this gathering they had a debate over one of the titles used by Shaikh Rabee’ "Sayyid
Qutb speaks with the opinion of the creation of the Qur’an". Shaikh Bakr alleged that Shaikh Rabee’ had been unjust in this.
Yet in the course of the debate, Shaikh Bakr admitted he had only read a portion of the chapter (of Shaikh Rabee’s book). So
Shaikh Rabee said to him, "then let us read the remainder of it" and this was because the Shaikh had actually give two examples
of how Sayyid Qutb made it permissible for someone besides Allaah to legislate rules and laws [referring here to the abolition of
slavery and introducing Socialism into Islam]. Yet Shaikh Bakr did not read them and he refused to read them and became very
angry, his anger being for Sayyid Qutb – yet what Qutb had committed with respect to the right of Allaah, the right of the
Companions and the Islamic Ummah did not anger him. So when the Shaikh observed this very strange and doubtful behaviour
from him he said to Shaikh Bakr "You have taken for yourself the highest position of making judgements, so is it permissible
for you to make a judgement against the whole of my book just because you have read two small sections from two chapters?"
And all he did in reply was to laugh!!! P.45)
Conclusion
And perhaps in what we have mentioned there is sufficiency for the seeker of truth and there is also sufficiency for the defender of
falsehood from amongst those who have loyalty for the sake of Innovation and its people, and for the sake of a Rafidi, who let
loose his tongue on the Kaleem of Allaah, Uthmaan and other notables amongst the Companions of Allaah's Messenger.
So it is upon every Qutubi who spread the discourse of Shaikh Bakr Abu Zaid to repent from it and to withhold from
mentioning it, lest the curse of its author fall upon him and lest he be led into humiliation and disgrace on account of
this curse. And we repeat, "Aameen, Aameen" to the supplication of the author of the so called "Golden Discourse".
And we say to every Qutubi who has loyalty and disownment for the sake of Sayyid Qutb, especially to the Qutubis of the US
and their Muqallidah from the UK, who have never ceased showing their hatred and disdain for the defenders of the honour of the
Companions of Allaah and the Prophets of Allaah:
Know that our madhdhab is but the concensus of the Ahl ul-Ilm, As.haabul-Athar, Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah,
from amongst among those in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) up until this day
of ours. And know that your madhhab is in opposition to ours, rather, your mode of conduct and despicable
behaviour, is but the madhdhab of Ahl ul-Bid’ah – whose love and hate is for other than Allaah's Messengers and for
other than the Companions.
And here is the evidence:
Ibn al-Qayyim says in his book Haadi ul-Arwaah ilaa Bilaad il-Afraah:
"And we shall quote their concensus (i.e. that of the Salaf) just as Harb, the companion of Imaam Ahmad, has quoted from them
in his own wording in his well known al-Masaa’il. He said: "This is the madhhab of the People of Knowledge, the
Ashaabul-Athar (People of the Narrations), Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, those who stick fast to it [Ahl us-Sunnah] and who
seek to guide themselves by [them i.e. the Ahl us-Sunnah] from among those in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah
(sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) up until this day of ours. And I met whomever I met from among the Scholars of the people of
Hijaaz and Shaam and others besides them. Whoever differs with and opposes a single matter from the madhaahib [of these
People of Knowledge] or contests and defames them or criticises the one who speaks [by what they speak with], then he is a
mukhaalif (opposer), a mubtadi’ (an innovator) and one who has left the Jamaa’ah, who has ceased to be upon the manhaj of the
Sunnah and the Path of Truth.
And this [i.e. the path of the People of Knowledge] is the madhhab of Ahmad, Ishaaq bin Ibraaheem, Abdullaah bin Zubair
al-Humaidee, Sa’eed bin Mansoor and others besides them amongst those with whom we have sat and taken knowledge
from…" And then he lists the points of their aqeedah, amongst them: "…And the mentioning of the good qualities and deeds of
the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and refraining from mentioning their shortcomings and
mistakes, those which occurred between them. Whoever reviles the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu
alaihi wasallam), or a single one amongst them, or reduces [their worth and status] or insults them or exposes their
faults or criticises a single one amongst them then he is a mubtadi’ (an innovator), a raafidee (an extreme shi’ite), a
khabeeth (vile and repugnant) and a mukhaalif (an opposer) and Allaah will not accept from him any of his efforts
nor his fair dealings. Rather loving them is a sunnah, supplicating for them is nearness (Allaah), taking them as a
model for guidance is a means (of nearness to Allaah) and accepting and taking from their narrations is an
excellence."
Ibn al-Qayyim referred here, to Harb bin Ismaa’eel al-Kirmaanee (one of the companions of Imaam Ahmad) who summarised the
creed of the Ahl us-Sunnah. This creed is contained in the book: "Masaa’il Harb bin Ismaa’eel al-Kirmaanee an il-Imaam
Ahmad", regarding which adh-Dhahabee (d. 748H) said: "It is one of the most precious of the books of the Hanaabilah."
And know that the only methodology that unites all of the groups of bid'ah into a single pot is the methodology of
Sayyid Qutb. For how many of the groups of innovation subscribe to Qutubism and its teachings? So you find
amongst the Qutubiyyah one who is a Jahmi, another a Sufi, another an Ash'ari, another a Muqallid, another a
Mu'tazili, another an Aqlaani, another an outright Khariji - and then another who has the creed of the Salaf in the
issues of Asmaa was-Sifaat and thinks he can remain upon the way of the Salaf by choosing the methodology of
Qutubism. Know that even the Iranian Rafidis print the books of Sayyid Qutb - which but call for revolutions and
rebellions, assassinations and coups - and they gave them to Hikmatyar to be distributed amongst his Jamaa'ah in
order to give it strength and numbers - the very Jamaa'ah that assassinated the Salafi Shaikh Jameel ur-Rahmaan and
put an end to the Islamic state he set up, built upon Tawheed, with the Hudood and other than that. This Rafidi and
his teachings - and your love and hate for his sake - is one that unites you with all the groups of Bid'ah in your
hatred and your battle against Ahl us-Sunnah, Ahl ul-Hadeeth wal-Athar and your labelling them with the most
despicable of titles.
And from Allaah is the refuge.
May prayers and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and companions. |
