u/Extension_Brick6806

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Notice the reminiscence of the Haddaadiyyah sect with the Yahuudis, rather their resemblance in re‑writing the history. Yahuudis colonized Filisteen and took it over, and now they say it's their country, blaming "terror" and "war" towards "Hamas", and many now regurgitate false arguments giving a blind eye to Yahuudis but instead spending much of their time against "Hamas". Similar to how Madkhaliyyah sect blame Hamas or in general against Palestinians saying their demise is due to people being shirk‑filled, but nowhere words on jihaad nor encouragement towards it. No, they are instead the mouth piece for the Yahuudis inadvertently. How is nifaaq grown in the first place? Just like the Khawaarij left the mushrikeen but waged war against the Muslims, what do we see from the Haddaadiyyah? The same. They consider Ahlul-Kalaam a far worse enemy of Islam than the actual kuffaar and mushrikeen. Their silence on imam ibn Qudaamah having fought alongside Salahud-Deen, an Ash'ari is deafening.

Knowing the truth, how did Yahuudis attempt to fool Allah? Fishing in the day it was forbidden while claiming they are all obeying Allah. What do we see from the Haddaadiyyah? They think that slanders, lies, manipulations, disparagements, false allegations, and the deliberate hiding of context and scholarly references are what Allah loves, despite the fact that all of it is haram.

Consider the following on al-Yahuud:

>Ibnul-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) described them well when he said:

>"The nation upon whom is the Divine wrath are the Jews, the people of lies, slander, betrayal, conspiracy and trickery, the killers of Prophets and consumers of ribaa (usury) and bribes. They have the most evil hearts of all nations, and the worst attitude. They are the farthest removed from (divine) Mercy and the closest to (divine) wrath. Their way is enmity and stirring up hatred. They represent the house of witchcraft, lies and trickery. They do not see anything wrong in rejecting and disbelieving in Prophets whom they did not like. With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant [cf. Al-Tawbah 9:10]. They do not respect the rights of those who agree with them, or show any compassion towards them, nor do they show any justice or fairness to those who work with them. There is no safety or security for those who mix with them, and there is no sincerity towards those who use their services. The most evil of them is the one who is most intelligent, and the cleverest one among them is the one who cheats the most. The one who is good at heart – which it is unlikely to find among them – is not a Jew in any real sense. They are the most bad-tempered of people, with the gloomiest houses and the filthiest courtyards. They have very bad manners – their greeting is a curse, and meeting them is bad news. Their slogan is wrath and they are filled with hatred."

>(Hidaayat al-Hayaaraa, p. 8)

Now, what have we seen from the Haddaadiyyah? Nothing but people of lies, slander, betrayal, conspiracy and trickery, the "killers" of scholars, inciters of intimidation and haram. Their vileness towards scholars is an indication of the most evil hearts, and we have seen their worst attitudes. What else have we seen? No wisdom in their call towards others on the Mercy of Allah, though it resembles the wrath that has touched the Yahuud. Their way is enmity and stirring up hatred. They represent the house of witchcraft (not literally but figuratively), not the lighthouse of truth, as witchcraft is also described as being "well articulated" since it can bewitch people, hence the youth being captivated by their deliberate misuse of the Salaf against imam Abu Haneefah, and this is trickery. They do not see anything wrong in rejecting and opposing the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah whom they do not like.

Have we also not seen them having no respect for the ties of kinship and families? They do not respect the rights of those who also say that Ahlul-Kalaam are misguided, nor show any compassion towards them, nor do they show any justice or fairness to those of Ahlus-Sunnah. There is no safety or security for those who mix with them, and there is no sincerity towards those who use their services. The most evil among them is the one who is most intelligent, and the cleverest one among them is the one who cheats the most. The one who is good at heart, which is unlikely to find among them, is not a Sunni in any real sense.

What are the Haddaadiyyah doing? Just as we have seen scholars of Ahlus‑Sunnah throughout generation after generation, giving respect, defending and honoring imam Abu Haneefah, addressing the issue of Kitab as‑Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad, yet the Haddaadiyyah foregoing, ignoring, thinking they are above the scholars or as though Ahlus‑Sunnah scholars have betrayed the Ummah and therefore their sincerity are no longer to be trusted. Hence are we to mention them having given not just respect to imam Abu Haneefah, but other scholars like ibn Hajar, an‑Nawawi or as‑Suyooti, we are met with silence. But instead their vileness will be towards you who had referenced those scholars that have given due respect to the imams. Then they will instead attempt to "champion the Salaf" in their animosity towards imam Abu Haneefah, but they will neglect how scholars have addressed this and they will argue "the Salaf are more knowledgeable than the contemporary scholars". But the very argument they are making is itself so weak they are not realizing their fallacy as they are not people of hadith. They want to rewrite history by ignoring how scholars have addressed this. They would purposefully hide the context of those scholarly critiques in the science of al‑Jarh wat‑Ta'deel and what the purpose behind this science is, and how certain narrations are actually considered weak as said by recent and contemporary scholars of Ahlus‑Sunnah. But what do we see instead of the Haddaadiyyah sect? They have made their own person as though it is the basis of truth, with no single contemporary scholar as precedence. But no, they misuse the names of the scholars and argue just for the sake of it, showing no respect for scholars, as the veil of respect was destroyed when they opened their mouth against imam Abu Haneefah, hiding yet again the context and concealing other instances of respect towards those these Haddaadiyyah want to disparage.

This is Yahuudi behavior, they resemble the Zionists and are therefore like the "Zionists" of this Ummah. They have no shame just as the Yahuudis have no shame in their lies, vileness and ugliness. Ever wonder why they are so obsessed with pornography and homosexuality? As the saying goes, every allegation is a confession of their own guilt. Will they accuse shaykh Muhammad Adam al-Ethiopi of being homosexual, just like they did towards a fellow Muslim whose only concern was Filisteen? No, this is a Yahuudi, khaariji, dajjaalic and satanic behavior. As it was not only an accusation of him being homosexual, but they also declared takfeer on him. On the basis of what?! They have taken upon themselves far beyond the role of a scholar, despite being far removed from any knowledge, understanding, and comprehension.

That's why they are the epitome of the work of Shaytan as shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd states:

>And with this, you come to know that the accursed initiative of declaring the imams—such as an-Nawawi, ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed, and ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalaani—as disbelievers, or belittling their status, or labeling them as misguided innovators, all of this is the work of Shaytan. It is a gateway to misguidance and leading others astray, as well as corruption and spreading corruption. If the witnesses of the Shari‘ah are discredited, then what they testify to is also discredited. However, the ignorant and reckless do not comprehend nor do they verify. (Source)

The "killing" of scholars is that they will not endorse you, the likes of shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd, shaykh Muhammad Adam al-Ethiopi, shaykh 'Abdullah al-Bassaam, shaykh 'Abdullah al-Fawzan, and the list goes on. But no, instead they will be deceptive, putting poison in the hearts of the youth. Hence why the Haddaadiyyah lie about what constitutes a scholar, as though true scholarship is only by way of "taqwa and eemaan". Inadvertently, without realizing it, they resemble Ahlul-Kalaam and those affected by them, like Hizbut-Tahrir and Jamaa'at at-Tableegh: "scholars are only those who concern themselves in the masjid," as though the masjid is not a blessed place or as though the teachings of true scholars have no value. They claim to be the "real ones" who have the correct concerns and are elevating the Ummah with pride and honor. But no, we instead see them making broad generalizations against the madhhab of Abu Haneefah, exaggerated hate towards Ahlul-Kalaam without any justice, countless slanderous posts, meaningless comments, putting themselves forward as examples to be followed.

Yet if you ask them whether their own parents share the same views as them, or how they see their own immediate families, the vileness and ugliness will reveal itself. Yet they say they are exemplifying the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in such foulness and disgusting allegations towards other Muslims. This is why we have yet to see the tawbah of Bashem in his apostasy of belittling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as being just "an ignorant man living in the desert". Yet his friend Ahmed makes a video about me, telling me to focus on "more important matters," and he failed to tell his friend to make tawbah from the belittlement, tawbah from his slanders against scholars, and tawbah from allegations and takfeer against fellow Muslims.

For how far removed their knowledge and understanding is, they ardently want to believe so much in the fabricated Israa'eeliyyaat that the earth is carried on the back of a bull, and in turn the bull standing on a giant fish. This is beyond cognitive dissonance, only highlighting what I’ve highlighted, but completely ignoring the rest of the scholarly references from the scholars of hadith. But what did Ahmed argue, despite never studying under any scholar of hadith? That the Sahaabah relied on Ka'b al-Ahbaar and therefore the fabricated Israa'eeliyyaat are all true?! Ahkaam, fiqh, and such are one thing, but fabricated Israa'eeliyyaat? How did he even come to conclude in such an extraordinary manner, with no precedence of any scholar, that the fabricated Israa'eeliyyaat is what the Sahaabah relied on?! The insanity of this is disturbing.

The hypocrisy of the subscribers of the Haddaadiyyah subreddit is even more embarrassing, rather revealing that they only name-drop when it fits their false agenda of misguidance. They once posted shaykh Saalih al-Fawzan despite the shaykh warning against disparagement of Abu Haneefah, an-Nawawi, and ibn Hajar. (Source)

Bashem would attempt to cite from shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr, yet the shaykh warned against disparagement of imam Abu Haneefah. (Source)

And the list goes on in their nifaaq. This is Yahuudi behavior, and they claim that in doing so they are obeying Allah and that He loves such conduct. Their actions are considered by them as a way to come closer to Allah, and an exemplary behavior like how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was. And in turn, this is what they consider as following the Salaf! They aren't fooling Allah, only themselves.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Refuting Misguided Sects

It's interesting that you have seemingly never seen how active I was in refuting misguided people and sects over time on Reddit. I created the subreddit r/AnsweringMutakallimun to refute Ahlul-Kalaam before I created r/AnsweringHaddaadiyyah. This was before Dimashqiyyah deviated from Ahlus-Sunnah and became an innovator of the Haddaadiyyah sect, going against the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah. The ignorance of what it means to deviate, of opposing the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, is not only found in the Haddaadiyyah but also in the Madkhaliyyah sect. Just as these two sects falsely perpetuate what it means to be from Ahlus-Sunnah, they have created false notions and fail to clarify why calling oneself "Salafi" or "Athari" is not a replacement for the term Ahlus-Sunnah.

This is why you cannot yet articulate, in your own words, how Mahmood al-Haddaad deviated, what happened to him, why shaykh Muqbil al-Waadi'ee spoke so harshly against him, and that he was not the only one. You cannot articulate, with verifiable references, how Rabee' al-Madkhali deviated or what exactly he opposed regarding the foundational principles of Ahlus-Sunnah. And your source for such understanding is who? You are likely at the mercy of translators, which explains why you have not come across refutations against Mahmood al-Haddaad or Rabee' al-Madkhali.

Attacks Through Dajjaalic Connections

This is why I am flattered that you have given me undivided attention through your dajjaalic Haddaadi friend. It tells me that you do not even know how he has belittled the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) yet you act as though you have gheerah for the Ummah. Who are you to oppose shaykh Muhammad Adam al-Ethiopi when he has given respect to al-Haafidh as-Suyooti, just as countless recent and contemporary 'ulama' have done? Yet you remain complacent, lackadaisical, and yielding to the vileness, ugliness, and slanderous nature of your friend Bashem in accusing as-Suyooti of homosexuality.

Are you also that careless about your friend lying about my site being pornographic and spreading demeaning lies against me? And are you indifferent to the fact that slandering a fellow Muslim by accusing him of homosexuality is punishable in Shari'ah? Are you such a person with cognitive dissonance that you claim there are far more important matters to attend to or focus on? Is behavior none of your concern? Are unbecoming characteristics and lying not to be corrected?

The Importance of Scholars in Knowledge

How are you that blind? Who are you to feel emboldened to think you can extract knowledge of the Salaf when you don’t even have scholars? Yet you think Imam Abu Dawood al-Sijistaani somehow invalidates the point about having scholars as your teachers, or as though it undermines the nobility of how knowledge is imparted just because we now have books? You don’t even have the book of the author who transmitted this statement of Imam Abu Dawood al-Sijistaani. How are you so pretentious as to ignore the author, ibn Bashkuwal? He has ijazaat and sanad, which means what? He has scholars as teachers. As though you have some grand point so powerful that it is as simple as quoting this citation: "Who do you command us to sit with after you?" to which he responded, "The books."

The very title by ibn Bashkuwal is "The Selected Benefits and the Strange/Extraordinary Stories," and I doubt you even know the purpose of his collection or why he compiled it in the first place. Yet you brought this statement to somehow disprove my point? Do you even understand how Ahlul-Hadith teach their students, yet you think this statement is to be understood literally? Are you that far removed from the Arabic language and usool al-fiqh? The hypocrisy of you people never ceases to amaze me, and your unwillingness to acknowledge manipulation as though you can bewilder us away from reality is remarkable.

Statements of Imam Abu Dawood al-Sijistaani

How are you ignoring imam Abu Dawood al-Sijistaani's words when he said:

>رَحِمَ اللهُ مالِكًا كانَ إِمامًا، ورَحِمَ اللهُ الشّافِعِيَّ كانَ إِمامًا، ورَحِمَ اللهُ أبا حَنِيفَةَ كانَ إِمامًا

>"May Allah have mercy on Maalik, he was an imam, and may Allah have mercy on ash-Shaafi‘ee, he was an imam, and may Allah have mercy on Abu Haneefah, he was an imam." (Source)

How are you so blind as to inadvertently concede to the lies and disparagements against imam Abu Haneefah from your dajjaalic friend? Or are you also the type who believes scholars can be disrespected, which is why you engage in vileness against those who aren't scholars but remain silent about those who have spoken favorably of Abu Haneefah? You have never studied al-Jarh wa al-Ta'deel under anyone, nor the science of hadith, yet you presume to tell me who learned these disciplines. Doing so only exposes your ignorance, and the hypocrisy of your false foundations becomes obvious. This inconsistency in your methodology proves exactly my point: knowledge is taught nobly through scholars, not merely through books.

Hence, you cannot bypass the purpose shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd wrote in his Hilyat Taalib al-'Ilm. This also shows you are not a student of knowledge. How lowly it is to attempt to bring up old, uninformed mistakes of some moderators, as though such "insults" are greater than the insults of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by your friend. How does this prove anything when far worse slander has been made against imam Abu Haneefah, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, imam an-Nawawi, and al-Haafidh as-Suyooti? Yet you feel insulted when someone states shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen was "on payroll by Saudi"? These were not my words nor my stance, yet you don't feel insulted when your friend spreads vileness against those scholars, which you likely witnessed yourself, but then you make a video about me? If this is not cognitive dissonance, I don't know what is.

False Claims and Misrepresentation of Knowledge

Yet you feel emboldened to demand that I focus on what you believe deserves attention. You likely have never even seen the foundations I have established, or what I emphasize for the laypeople: that knowledge is learned through scholars, and foundational beliefs must be established before anyone can engage in the misguidance of sects. 'Aqeedah is a distinctive science, just as al-Firaq is, and this reveals clearly that you are not a student of knowledge. This is quite basic understanding.

You are also not even proving anything by your attempt to cite from Kitab as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad on the narrations against imam Abu Haneefah, but this yet again proves your pretentiousness and how lacking you are in having scholars as teachers, when this matter was all clarified way before you were born. But it again shows how inconsistent and hypocritical you guys are, as what was referenced above is already damning enough.

For instance, when shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr was asked about Kitab as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad, he responded:

>... In the book as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on them), there are weak reports, and this is the case in many of the works of the early scholars, where the author did not necessarily adhere strictly to authenticity in all reports.

>What is mentioned regarding imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him) is part of the broader context of criticizing innovators. Criticism of innovators at the time was significant because the innovations were still recent, and it was easier to turn away from them. However, when dealing with an innovator, it is clear that the innovator is in opposition to the Sunnah. Innovations vary in severity, some of which are blasphemous and some are not. The one who follows a heretical innovation that leads to disbelief should be treated as a disbeliever, especially if they are obstinate and there is no confusion or doubt remaining about the truth. If the doubt was removed and the truth was made clear to them, but they still persisted in their stance, they are treated in the same manner as disbelievers.

>On the other hand, if the person has genuine doubts, and no one has been able to remove them, or if their doubt is strong and they are excused due to their ignorance, then the matter is different. There are factors that must be taken into account.

>In any case, imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him) remains one of the great imams of the Muslims, and the reports about him, especially regarding innovation, are meant to serve as a warning against innovations that arose during his time.

(Source)

How uninformed can you be? How are you ignoring the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah in addressing this issue?

Shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh was asked: "What is your view on what is mentioned in the Kitab as-Sunnah of 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad regarding the accusation of Abu Haneefah saying that the Qur'an is created, and so on?" He answered:

>"This is a good question. This is found in the Kitab as-Sunnah of 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad. At his time, the fitnah regarding the createdness of the Qur'an was significant, and people would cite things attributed to Abu Haneefah, from which he was innocent, such as the claim that the Qur'an was created. Other things were attributed to him by the Mu'tazilah, from their interpretation of the divine attributes and so on, which he was also innocent of. Some of these reports spread among the people and were transmitted by some scholars, who ruled according to the apparent wording. This was before Abu Haneefah had an established school or madhhab, because this was close to his time. Statements were transmitted, the words of Wakee', the words of Sufyan ath-Thawri, Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah, and the words of other scholars regarding imam Abu Haneefah. At that time, by the ijtihaad of 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad, there was a need to transmit the sayings of scholars as they were reported.

>But later, as at-Tahaawi mentioned, the scholars agreed not to transmit such reports and to mention imam Abu Haneefah only with goodness and praise. This was after the time of al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi. That is, in the time of imam Ahmad they may have spoken about it, and in the time of al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, some statements were transmitted in his history, and responses were written against them. Eventually, by studying the methodology of the Salaf in the sixth and seventh centuries, ibn Taymiyyah wrote his famous treatise Raf' al-Malaam 'an al-A'immah al-A'laam, "Lifting Blame from the Eminent Imams." In all his books, he mentions imam Abu Haneefah with goodness and praise and invokes mercy upon him. He attributes to him only one matter, the statement regarding al-Irjaa', deferring judgment of sinners, without transmitting the entire series of sayings attributed to him. There is the book al-Fiqh al-Akbar of Abu Haneefah, and there are his letters indicating that generally he followed the righteous predecessors, except in this issue concerning whether deeds are included in the definition of faith.

>When scholars wanted to print Kitab as-Sunnah of 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad, the supervisor and reviewer was shaykh 'Abdullah ibn Hasan Aal ash-Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, who was the head judge in Makkah at that time. He removed this chapter entirely from printing, so it was not printed, because from the standpoint of Shar'i wisdom it had its time and ended. It was an act of ijtihaad and consideration for the people's benefit to remove it and not leave it, and this is not a betrayal of trust. True trustworthiness is not letting people turn away from what 'Abdullah ibn imam mentioned in his book regarding authentic Sunnah and correct creed because of these transmitted sayings. The book was printed without this chapter, and it spread among the people and scholars as Kitab as-Sunnah of 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad.

>Recently, in a scholarly thesis or research, this chapter was reintroduced; it exists in the manuscripts and is known. They reinserted this chapter, saying that trustworthiness requires its inclusion.

>There is no doubt that this is not correct, but it follows the practice of previous scholars, scholars of Da'wah, in matters of Shar'i policy, understanding the purposes of scholars in their compositions, differences of time, place, circumstances, what creed was settled upon, and what scholars said about it.

>When it was printed, I was attending a scholarly gathering at the house of the esteemed shaykh Saalih al-Fawzan. The late shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez, may Allah have mercy on him, was also present, and I raised the matter. He, may Allah have mercy on him, said in shaykh Saalih's gathering: 'What the scholars did is correct and proper. From Shar'i policy, it is appropriate to remove it; including it is not suitable.' This is the methodology upheld by scholars."

(Source) (Source)

Pretentiousness Online

This is the issue of pretentiousness online. It shows how some individuals, in attempting to get ahead of themselves before the scholars and addressing me directly, are merely projecting. They act as though I am on par with their lowliness of rushing ahead of the scholars. They try to "address" me or "refute" me as though I had put myself forward, as though my words carry weight, or as though I am not relying on the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah. The Haddaadiyyah directly target me, attempting to disparage me, while completely ignoring that I put forward the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah before myself. I am simply conveying, or making it easier to understand, the falseness of the Haddaadiyyah methodology, citing scholarly references exactly in line with the points I present.

Is it because you are at the mercy of translators, ya Ahmed? Rhetorical question aside, there is always a right time and circumstance to address misguidance. Just as self-proclaimed Ahlul-Kalaam who attempted to lie against Ahlus-Sunnah were addressed in a timely manner, you just happened to be late or unaware of those circumstances. Similarly, the Madkhaliyyah sect has been refuted, as has the Shee'ah sect. It is no surprise that the falseness of the Haddaadiyyah sect is being addressed in a similar, timely manner.

Conclusion

I would like to end by stating that I am thankful for you giving me your undivided attention, as it allowed me to further expose the falseness of your methodology, how misguided you people are, and how far removed you are from the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah. The audacity to feel emboldened to bypass, ignore, and forego them, the obstinacy in thinking you do not need scholars as teachers, only proves that knowledge once had nobility when it was passed down from teachers to students, before people became occupied with books. Alhamdulillah, the truth is clear. It is like claiming you can learn tajweed without any teachers, simply by reading books. This also indicates that you do not adhere to a madhhab but have adopted a false Dhaahiriyyah approach in their mistaken conception of taqleed. That, however, is beside the point, as there are many other issues that could have been addressed, though you clearly do not have the attention span to fully comprehend what I have conveyed.

So, spare me your personal feelings and your complaints about how blunt I am toward the likes of you, who belong to the Haddaadiyyah sect. This is not a therapy session. You likely ignore shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd because he contradicts the false foundations you stand upon, like your friend Bashem. You fail to understand that when scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah are discredited, everything they testify to is undermined. As shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd states:

> "And with this, you come to know that the accursed initiative of declaring the imams—such as an-Nawawi, Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eed, and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalaani—as disbelievers, or belittling their status, or labeling them as misguided innovators, all of this is the work of Shaytan. It is a gateway to misguidance and leading others astray, as well as corruption and spreading corruption. If the witnesses of the Shari‘ah are discredited, then what they testify to is also discredited. However, the ignorant and reckless do not comprehend nor do they verify." (Source)

This is exactly why your attempts to attack me or question my points reveal more about your pretentiousness than anything else. You confront me personally as though I am on the same level as your friend Bashem, yet you ignore the very scholars whose authority you cannot bypass without undermining yourself. The audacity to feel emboldened to reject, bypass, and ignore the guidance of Ahlus-Sunnah exposes your ignorance and the weakness of your methodology.

Please, inform yourself of the Haddaadiyyah sect:

• متسلسلة التبديع الحدادية ( دراسة تأصيلية تحليلية مقارنة )

May Allah guide you.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Bashem's Lies and Public Misconduct

The lies, insults, belittlement, disparagements, manipulations, deliberate misinforming of others, hiding context, invoking Allah to curse Muslims, accusing others of direct homosexual acts, and declaring imams as disbelievers are not small matters. All of this has been done publicly, yet some remain deliberate in these unbecoming behaviors.

The youth have reached out privately to show how much harm Bashem has caused to families. Many people had actually recanted after realizing how deceptive and deviant he was, expressing gratitude for being enlightened with scholarly references. I never presented myself as the source of guidance, instead telling them, "All good is from Allah," and by the Will of Allah, they can affirm this from the private exchanges themselves.

Bashem has spread false and slanderous claims, such as labeling my site as pornographic. He also claimed I am "ex-Azhari," attempting to disparage me despite the fact that I have never been affiliated with al-Azhar, never entered it, nor studied there.

The Influence on Youth

The youth can be highly impressionable, which is why teenagers are believing Bashem and being influenced by him. This makes it necessary to clearly state the lies and disparagements he has spread about me. My personal identity is not the focal point; I do not want people to equate me with the truth or assume that my person is tied to it. Time and again, I do not put myself forward; I merely convey what the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have taught.

• https://student.faith/about.html

The sources I cite are verifiable, and the exposé against the Haddaadiyyah is evident, showing their inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and double standards. People already know that I encourage learning from scholars, giving suggestions on what to study, and emphasizing that seeking knowledge has a proper path and is done in stages.

There is nothing for me to retract, and I will not concede to this dajjaalic Haddaadi. Bashem is the one who should publicly retract, recant, and make tawbah: first for his belittlement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), second for misguidance in disparaging past imams, third to dissociate from leading figures of misguidance in the Haddaadiyyah sect such as ibn Shams, al-Khulayfi, and Dimashiqyyah, and fourth to retract his demeaning and false allegations against Muslims of homosexuality.

Context Over Misrepresentation

The [video] in question attempts to "expose" old comments made by other moderators, which in itself proves nothing. Those moderators have since moved on and developed more informed opinions. Attempting to publicly tie them to their past words only serves as a distraction. Instead, it strengthens my position, showing that Bashem's own belittlement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is far more egregious than anything in that video. Even Bashem's threat to "expose" my identity by hiring hackers means nothing to me, as I am not concerned about such attempts.

The Haddaadiyyah's attempts to project false notions over a small excerpt, while neglecting the full context, are far more insignificant than their attempts to portray me as though I "insulted," "belittled," or accused shaykhul-Islam of "committing innovations." This is nothing compared to Bashem's belittlement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is absurd that they try to twist my words in order to disparage me. The context of what I said is clear and sufficient, and I will not shy away from referencing it publicly:

• https://old.reddit.com/r/extomatoes/comments/1nh6nn4/are_there_good_innovations_in_islam_shaykh_abd/nehupsh/

Clarifying Ibn Taymiyyah

Nothing in my statement is a disparagement or allegation against shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. On the contrary, it clarifies the proper understanding of his approach, emphasizing the distinction between his theoretical perspective and his practical methodology.

The statement:

>"What shaykhul-Islam did, rubbing his face in the dirt, would actually appear as an innovation, as would his going to deserted masaajid solely to make this du'aa'"

is not an allegation because it does not claim he actually committed an innovation (bid'ah) or did anything blameworthy. Rather, it is an observation about perception and appearance. The wording "would actually appear as an innovation" shows how the actions might seem to an observer who does not understand the context, not a judgment on his actions or character. In other words, it is hypothetical, not accusatory. It says the actions might appear unusual, not that they are innovations.

This is a clarification of perception and context, not an allegation, insult, or criticism. It highlights the difference between apparent and actual innovation, showing how scholars have approached ibn Taymiyyah’s texts in isolation, the so-called "theoretical perspective," while his practical methodology was more lenient. Taking the theoretical perspective literally without context could mistakenly appear as though ibn Taymiyyah himself were committing innovations, which is precisely what the statement aims to clarify.

Conclusion

There are many other points I could clarify or dispel regarding Bashem's falsehoods, but what I have addressed are the most important ones. My identity is not the focal point. The real issue that should be highlighted is the deviation of the Haddaadiyyah sect, along with Bashem's belittlement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

To clarify, any [claim] made against imam an-Nawawi...

Once, shaykh Muqbil al-Waadi’ee was asked about al-Haddaad and the Haddaadiyyah, to which he replied:

>As for al-Haddaad, he was Mahmood al-Haddaad, and he was upright at first, though Allah knows best if he was hiding (his stances). There was cooperation and friendship between him and shaykh Rabee’, but later he revealed the misguidance he was upon, such as claiming that Fath al-Baari is a book of misguidance because it contains errors in some aspects of ‘aqeedah, and therefore, it must be burned.

>I say: were it not for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying, "None punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire," I would have said: "You, O Haddaad, are more deserving of being burned!" Fath al-Baari is considered a treasury of knowledge with no equal among the books of Sunnah. May Allah reward its author for his good deeds, his few mistakes are overwhelmed by the great contributions he made. The same applies to Sharh an-Nawawi (Commentary on Saheeh Muslim).

>These are some of the gravest of his [al-Haddaad’s] errors, the greatest of which was his statement that Fath al-Baari and Sharh Saheeh Muslim should be burned. And Allah’s help is sought.

(Source)

If only scholars had witnessed the full reality of Rabee’ al-Madkhali and the path it eventually led him down. This explains why shaykh ar-Raajihee said: "Rabee' al-Madkhali is a Murji' and not a Salafi. If the scholars knew the Irjaa' that he affirms, they would not have praised him." (Source)

Shaykh 'Abdul-Qaadir Shaybah al-Hamd is even more direct: "Rabee' al-Madkhali is a liar, a corrupt man, waging war against the Deen of Allah." (Source)

Since many among the ignorant of the Haddaadiyyah remain oblivious to the deviation of Rabee' al-Madkhali, I will suffice by referencing the following sources:

• التيار المدخلي: سياق النشأة ومظاهر التكوين الفكري
• التيار المدخلي: مآلات التوظيف وقراءة في توصيات مراكز الأبحاث الغربية
• التيار المدخلي: قائمة بأهم الردود على مرتكزاته الفكرية

As for their repeated attempts to make underhanded remarks against imam an-Nawawi, I will quote a far more knowledgeable scholar with deep insight into the Salaf, namely al-Haafidh ibn Rajab, on imam an-Nawawi:

>Then the Faqeeh, the Imam, the Zaahid, the Exemplary, Abu Zakariyya Yahya an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, took the hadiths dictated by ibn as-Salaaḥ, added to them until they became a complete forty-two hadiths, and titled his book "Al-Arbaʿeen" (The Forty). These forty hadiths that he compiled became widely known, were often memorized, and Allah brought much benefit through them due to the blessing of the compiler’s sincere intention and good purpose, may Allah have mercy on him.

(Source)

To allege that imam an-Nawawi has come out of the fold of Islam is therefore entirely unfounded. As one scholar has also addressed:

>"There is no doubt that an-Nawawi made mistakes in interpreting a number of reports, misinterpreting them, just as others have erred. Who among us is infallible in the knowledge of Allah, Exalted is He?! According to these critics, one cannot be deemed knowledgeable about Allah unless they are infallible in understanding the divine attributes! This methodology is misguided and has become prevalent among some hadith scholars and many mutakallimeen. They claim that anyone who does not agree with them on certain issues they advocate cannot truly know Allah. Some of them even go as far as to declare those who err in such matters as disbelievers, which is a grave error. If they mean by 'knowledge' an absolute, error-free understanding, then they too should admit their own shortcomings in this regard. If they mean general knowledge that may include some errors, this applies to an-Nawawi, themselves, and many others from Ahlul-Islam."

(Source: فارس بن عامر العجمي)

Further references supporting the integrity and scholarship of imam an-Nawawi include:

• IslamQA: موقف علمائنا من الحافظين ابن حجر والنووي رحمهما الله
• Shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin al-'Abbaad: بيان سلامة الحافظين النووي والعسقلاني من عقائد المتكلمين

This demonstrates clearly that all attempts to disparage imam an-Nawawi or suggest he is outside the fold of Islam are baseless and contrary to the position of Ahlus-Sunnah scholars.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Bashem, also known as Wild_Extra_Dip, is from the Khalaf. Al-Haafidh ibn Rajab has a great treatise on the superiority of the Salaf over the Khalaf, which I encourage everyone to learn from. Al-Haafidh also has one of the best explanations of the Forty Hadith of imam an-Nawawi.

Bashem is from this era, yet he believes one can bypass all the scholars, and that everyone should be able to extract directly from the Salaf without being taught by contemporary scholars. In this, he resembles ibn Ridwan, whom shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd described when discussing the importance of taking knowledge from teachers:

>Receiving knowledge from shaykhs: The foundation in seeking knowledge is that it should be through direct instruction and learning from teachers, by taking from the mouths of men and not from pages and the insides of books.

>It has been said: "Whoever enters into knowledge alone, leaves it alone," meaning: whoever enters the pursuit of knowledge without a teacher leaves it without knowledge. Knowledge is a craft, and every craft requires a craftsman, so it is necessary in learning it to have a skilled teacher.

>This is almost a point of consensus among the people of knowledge, except for a few who deviated, such as 'Ali ibn Ridwan al-Misri, the physician (d. 453 AH). The scholars of his time and those after them refuted him. Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his biography of him: "He did not have a teacher. Rather, he occupied himself with learning from books, and he even authored a book on acquiring knowledge of the discipline from books, claiming that they are more suitable than teachers. This is a mistake." End quote. As-Safadi elaborated in al-Waafee in refuting him.

>The practical, observable proof of the invalidity of ibn Ridwan’s view is that you will find thousands of biographies and historical accounts, across different eras, lands, and fields of knowledge, filled with the mention of teachers and students, whether few or many.

>Al-Waleed said: Al-Awzaa'ee used to say, "This knowledge was once noble, passed directly between men. But when it entered the books, those who were not qualified entered into it."

End quote, adapted from Hilyat Taalib al-'Ilm.

As al-Awzaa'ee described, knowledge was not passed down to Bashem in its nobility by a scholar. Rather, he is among the unqualified who entered through books.

And as al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabi described concerning ibn Ridwan, Bashem likewise has no known teacher. Rather, he busied himself with learning from books, then claimed to stand at the forefront in defending the Salaf, attempting to champion them without any teacher, while behaving as though books are more suitable than scholars. This is deviance.

It is truly astounding how he acts in the exact manner of the Ruwaybidah. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) described them as "the foolish person" and, in another narration, "the insignificant man who speaks about the affairs of the general public." Narrated by ibn Maajah (4036) and Ahmad (13/291).

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

One Haddaadi redditor wrote, while referencing a video:

• Historical accounts of scholars affirming dislike of Ashari aqeedah

Just like another Haddaadi known for his eulogy over the death of a Pope, he has been so adamant in his hate that their online presence is now characterized by the conduct of a hateful sect, with vileness in their words against Muslims, even accusing them of homosexuality.

However, is this hatred so justified that it must reach such extremism and exaggeration? Consider the following from the article on the false principle of Rabee' al-Madkhali:

>The Second Principle: The innovator's good deeds should never be mentioned, without distinguishing between contexts of warning, evaluation, and biographies. This principle is considered fundamental by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. Shaykh Rabee' argues that it is impossible to distinguish between the Sunnah and innovation, or between authentic and weak hadiths, or to defend Islam and the Sunnah without this principle. He refers to opposing this view as the "methodology of balancing," considering it the most deceitful plot against Islam. He claims that if this principle were adopted, it would lead to the destruction of the Quran, the Sunnah, sciences of Shari'ah, and even all human sciences?! He asserts that it contradicts the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Ummah, and that it is an innovation in methodology. Moreover, he considers those who oppose this principle to be partisans.

Later in the article:

>When shaykh ibn Baaz, al-'Uthaymeen, al-Albaani, Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh, and other scholars were mentioned, they explicitly differentiated between the two contexts. Shaykh ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) attributed this approach to shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah in his message "Important Clarifications on What as-Saabooni Wrote About the Attributes of Allah the Almighty," where he said in the context of explaining the principle mentioned by ibn Taymiyyah: "The Ash'aris and others are praised for what they said and wrote in support of the truth in the fundamentals of religion and other matters, and they are criticized for their mistakes in order to uphold the truth and refute falsehood so that the matter is not confused for those with limited knowledge."

>However, shaykh Rabee' had a different opinion. When commenting on the book "Ibn Taymiyyah's Position on the Ash'aris" by Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahmoud, he argued that this had nothing to do with the methodology of balancing and that ibn Taymiyyah intended to distinguish between truth and falsehood, guidance and misguidance, so that the truth could be known and taken and the falsehood recognized and avoided. This is astonishing, and one wonders whether to laugh or cry at this statement. Isn't mentioning the truth they hold and highlighting what they got right a form of acknowledging their good deeds? And is mentioning their good deeds anything other than acknowledging their correct beliefs, statements, and actions?

>Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah was accurate in describing beliefs of innovation as something that cannot be fully understood. Where is this supposed interpretation in what ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in "Dar' Ta'arud al-Aql wa an-Naql," vol. 1, pp. 99-103, about the good qualities of al-Baaqillaani and Abu Dharr al-Harawi? Or what he mentioned in "Al-Furqaan bayna Awliyaa' ar-Rahman wa Awliyaa' ash-Shaytan," vol. 13, p. 96, of Majmoo' al-Fatawa about the conversion of disbelievers at the hands of the Raafidhah and Jahmiyyah? Or his statement in "al-Fatawa al-Kubra," vol. 6, p. 262, after discussing Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari: "The correct view of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is that a person or a group may have both commendable good deeds and blameworthy bad deeds, and they may deserve reward for their good deeds and punishment for their bad deeds. They are neither to be praised nor condemned for permissible and forgiven errors of forgetfulness. This is the view of Ahlus-Sunnah concerning the sinful believers and others. Therefore, many in the Ummah, including the leading scholars and rulers, have both aspects, and some people focus only on their good deeds out of excessive love, while others focus only on their bad deeds out of excessive hatred. The religion of Allah is between the one who goes to extremes and the one who falls short, and the best matters are in the middle."

>These quotes refute your claim. No wonder shaykh al-'Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was astonished by what al-Madkhali asserted. Allah's help is sought.

>When Rabee' al-Madkhali discussed the narrators of hadith who were innovators, he applied his principle to them, stating that mentioning the narrator's honesty and reliability in transmitting hadith serves the interest of preserving the Sunnah. He claimed that books of biographies do not contain any mention of good deeds, using the books of criticism and commendation and the statements of the scholars of this field as evidence. If only he had restricted this to innovative narrators, but he extended it to include all discredited narrators, even if they were not innovators. In his book "al-Muhajjah al-Baydaa' fee Himaayat as-Sunnah al-Gharraa'," he claimed that this also applies to all discredited narrators and that if mentioning good deeds were obligatory or recommended, it would imply that the books of criticism and commendation are guilty of the greatest and ugliest injustice!

>Among the evidence cited by al-Madkhali is a statement from imam Muslim in the introduction to his Saheeh, where he lists biographies of severely weak narrators. His bias led him to omit five statements from three of the leading scholars of Jarh wa Ta'deel (criticism and commendation): Ayyoob as-Sakhtiyani, Abu az-Zinad, and ibn al-Mubaarak. These can be found in the introduction to Saheeh Muslim with the commentary of an-Nawawi, vol. 1, pp. 86, 94, 97, 104, and 117. The only reason for their omission is that four of these statements contradict his claim, as they contain unqualified praise for virtue, religion, or trustworthiness, not just honesty. What al-Madkhali did is characteristic of the people of innovation, not Ahlus-Sunnah. Imam Wakee' ibn al-Jarraah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Ahlus-Sunnah narrate what is for them and against them, while the people of innovation do not narrate except what is for them."

>We seek refuge in Allah from following whims and distorting the truth. How can someone with this tendency have any status in the science of hadith? There is no excuse for this omission under the pretext that it was a mistake, as al-Madkhali himself claimed in another instance. These statements were scattered, not consecutive. Additionally, there are statements from four other scholars of Jarh wa Ta'deel regarding narrators who were either innovators or had issues with their precision, refuting al-Madkhali's claim. One such statement, omitted from the introduction to Saheeh Muslim, is from imam ibn al-Mubaarak (may Allah have mercy on him): "I said to Sufyan ath-Thawri: 'Abbaad ibn Katheer is known for his condition, and when he speaks, he brings forth something significant. Do you think I should tell people not to take from him?' Sufyan replied: 'Yes.' So, whenever I was in a gathering where 'Abbaad was mentioned, I praised his piety and advised people not to take from him."

(https://student.faith/articles/al-madkhali.html)

So the issue is not whether Ash'ari errors are to be criticized. They are criticized, refuted, and clarified. The issue is whether hatred is allowed to replace justice, whether warning becomes exaggeration, and whether the way of the scholars is abandoned for online Haddaadi extremism. The scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah distinguished between truth and falsehood, between the context of warning and the context of biography, and between refutation and reckless vilification. As for these Haddaadiyyah, the more they speak, the more they expose that their war is not merely against innovation, but against the very balance and justice of Ahlus-Sunnah itself.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

This dajjaalic Haddaadi responded:

>Yes every Shia today is a Rafidhi who insults the sahaba and believes that they're lying hypocrites despite Allaah in the Quraan venerating them

>Whoever tells you otherwise is trying to defend those who -literally- consider him the son of prostitution, as it was narrated in their books that all non-Shia are sons of prostitutional acts!

(Source)

Before anything else, the Shee'ah are indeed from the misguided sects, but to say that they are all one and the same? Why is he constantly resembling the Khawaarij, and inadvertently resembling the Raafidhah, in viewing eemaan as though it is one level? This is the problem with people putting themselves forward before the scholars. It is from arrogance when they believe their identity equals the truth, which is why they feel above having to mention any scholarly reference. Who is he to make such a blunderous statement? It is one thing to hate the innovators, but another thing to fall into extremism and exaggeration.

This is something that imam 'Abbaad ibn 'Abbaad al-Khawaas (may Allah have mercy on him) warned against when he said: "Do not carry hatred towards the innovator, for the corruption of their innovation does not extend beyond them. However, your excessive hatred can lead to greater corruption in yourself." This was narrated by ad-Daarimi in his Sunan in the introduction.

Consider the contrast. Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen said:

>It is obligatory to be cautious in declaring disbelief upon a group or a specific individual until it is known that the conditions for takfeer are fulfilled in his case and that the impediments have been removed. If this is established, then it should be understood that the Shee'ah consist of many different sects. As-Saffaareeni mentioned in his commentary on his 'aqeedah that they are twenty-two sects. Accordingly, the ruling concerning them differs based on how far they are from the Sunnah; whoever is further from the Sunnah is closer to misguidance.

(Source)

Even shaykh ibn Baaz, who does not consider the excuse of ignorance in matters of shirk, said:

>Among them are many categories. Among them are disbelievers, and among them are those who are not disbelievers. The mildest and least extreme of them are those who say that 'Ali is superior to the three (Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and ‘Uthmaan). This person is not a disbeliever, but he is mistaken, for 'Ali is the fourth, and as-Siddeeq, 'Umar, and 'Uthmaan are superior to him. If someone gives him precedence over those three, then he has erred and opposed the consensus of the Companions, yet he does not become a disbeliever. They are of different levels and categories...

(Source)

Yet even shaykh 'Abdurrahman al-Barraak, whom this Haddaadi mysteriously considers "dead" despite him being well and alive at the time of writing, makes the contrast so clear that it is more evident than their belief in an Israa'eeli false narration that the earth rests upon the back of a bull:

>Question:

>What is the difference between the Shee'ah and the Raafidhah, and what is the ruling on each group?

>Answer:

>Allah's help is sought.

>The Raafidhah are some of the Shee'ah. "Shee'ah" is a name for three groups, all of whom claim to revere Ahlul-Bayt and 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in particular. However, they are of different levels. The scholars say that the Shee'ah are three:

>Extremists: such as the Ismaa'iliyyah, the Nusayriyyah, and their likes. These are heretical disbelievers, more disbelieving than the Jews and Christians, but they are hypocrites who do not openly reveal the reality of their doctrines.

>The second group: the Imaamiyyah or Twelvers. They are themselves divided into groups. There is no doubt that they are misguided, among the worst of the people of innovation, rather they are the worst of the people of the Qiblah, because they have combined many evils. They are known as "the revilers."

>The third group: the Mufaddilah, those who prefer 'Ali over Abu Bakr and 'Umar, but they do not revile Abu Bakr and 'Umar and do not attack them. This applies to the Zaydiyyah.

(Source)

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

The misguidance of the Haddaadiyyah sect, is ever revealing that they are indeed misguided and the more they speak, the more they increasingly expose themselves, and their attempts to cite from the narrations, especially their projections, commentaries or explanations, you will notice that there is no scholarly preceding from Ahlus-Sunnah but instead of their own non-scholarly blunders.

Let us be reminded by this excerpt from an article:

>This is where the Haddaadiyyah fell short. They are among those who are extreme in tabdee', branching off from the Madaakhilah (and Haazimi is one of their figures, but he increased in extremism in takfeer until he reached the level of the Khaarijiyyah, yet still, you find some of the Haddaadiyyah praising and commending him!!). They deviated in some aspects from the imams of the Salaf, thinking they are following in their footsteps and are their rightful heirs, as if the matter is exclusive to them. And even though they have commendable efforts in editing their books, collecting their letters, and summarizing their statements, their understanding is not relied upon due to their weak foundational tools and their abandonment of the methodology of the fuqahaa' in clarifying the views of their imams. Their situation is as ibn Taymiyyah described Majmoo' al-Fatawa 20/184-185:

>>Chapter: The Deviants Among the Followers of the Imams in Foundations and Branches; The deviants among the followers of the imams in foundations and branches, like some of the Khuraasaanis from the people of Jeelaan and others who affiliate with Ahmad and others, have various types of deviations...

>Until he said about the fifth type of their deviation:

>>The fifth type is to make his words general or unrestricted while it is not so. Then, there might be some excuse for them due to some general or unrestricted wording in his speech, like his general takfeer of the Jahmiyyah, but it is conditional with conditions that were absent in those he showed mercy to among those who tested him, and they are the heads of the Jahmiyyah.

(https://student.faith/articles/haddaadiyyah.html)

Now to the Haddaadi's own Khaarijiyyah:

• Takfeer is part of denying the sin of the sinners evidenced by the creature of the earth

The very title itself reveals his true position of Khawaarij extremism. Let us consider the following scholarly clarification from shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah:

>The Khawaarij were the first to declare Muslims disbelievers. They declare people disbelievers because of sins, and they declare whoever opposes them in their innovation to be disbelievers, and they deem his blood and wealth lawful.

>This is the condition of the people of innovation: they introduce an innovation and then declare whoever opposes them in it to be disbelievers.

>As for Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, they follow the Book and the Sunnah, obey Allah and His Messenger, follow the truth, and show mercy to creation.

(Source)

See the clear contrast between the goodness and beauty of guidance, and the reprehensible vileness of misguidance. How can this vile individual be so blind to the truth?

Who is he that his personal misinterpretation should take precedence over the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah regarding how takfeer should be understood? He completely butchered the understanding of takfeer. Yet we are not even beginning with his post itself, but rather with how his extremism is so revealing from the very title alone. Notice the evidence he attempted to use, and how he projected it through the title he chose.

But before all that, where does this narration even appear in the first place? In the tafseer of imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari. As previously established, they omit the context and do not reveal which source they took these narrations from. Now who is imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari? The imam of the mufassireen. What were some of his works? Just as this Haddaadi made a revealing blunder by not knowing the work of Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani, while trying to prove his belief that the entire earth rests upon a comical giant bull, which is an Israa'eeli narration that turned out to be false. This Haddaadi attempted to uphold Hilyatul-Awliyaa' in such high regard, yet his hypocrisy was exposed when he did not do the same for Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani's work on Musnad al-Imam Abi Haneefah.

Now what was one of the works of imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari? None other than:

• Ikhtilaaf al-Fuqahaa'

Imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari included imam Abu Haneefah among the great fuqahaa'. In another work, in his Taareekh, ibn Jareer reported a very favorable statement regarding one of the fuqahaa' of the Hanafiyyah:

>Abu Zuhayr al-Janaabi, the jurist, was pious and knowledgeable in the madhhab of Abu Haneefah.

(Source)

Rather, let us see from the very tafseer of imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari himself. Did he have any favorable words regarding imam Abu Haneefah, whom this Haddaadi is so adamant about declaring a kaafir and disparaging? Yes, indeed. When discussing some rulings related to the Ayat of the Qur'an, ibn Jareer mentioned the opinions of the great fuqahaa':

>This is the view of Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, Hammaad, Abu Haneefah, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad.

>I have already mentioned the narration from Ibrahim and Hammaad earlier, which indicates that. And it is the explicit stated view of Abu Haneefah and his companions.

(Source)

Are we to go into such detail, with more pages and more evidences of favorable words, then this entire post would be filled with them. But what has been cited is enough as evidence that this vile Haddaadi is constantly contradicting himself, exposing his hypocrisy, and proving that he follows his lustful desires. He will never recover from this.

Now to his ignorant and unfounded claim, which has no precedent from any scholar, and which again is a testament to his going against the very principle of imam Ahmad:

>Directly warning us that takfeer is one of the main ways that the believers warn against falsehood as when the kaafir is labelled as such, the rulings of kufaar are given to him and as such, he is given dawah in direct ways, such as not befriending him and not marrying him and not praying salah of death upon him or eating from his slaughter (depending on the type of kaafir)

Imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari, imam al-Qurtubi, and al-Haafidh ibn Katheer never used the word "takfeer" after mentioning this narration.

In the Haddaadi's mourning over the death of a Pope, when commemorating him by writing detailed Hijri and Gregorian dates, while lying against shaykh 'Abdurrahman al-Barraak by claiming he had passed away, likely because he considers him "dead" figuratively since the shaykh does not share his false principles, what this Haddaadi says about "takfeer" is so unfounded that even the Master's thesis "الجهل بمسائل الاعتقاد وحكمه," meaning "Ignorance Concerning Matters of Creed and Its Ruling", contradicts him.

This work is described as:

>الكتاب أصل لرسالة علمية لدرجة الماجستير بإشراف الشيخ عبد الرحمن بن ناصر البراك

Meaning:

>"The book was originally an academic thesis for a Master's degree, supervised by shaykh 'Abdurrahman ibn Naasir al-Barraak."

This very work alone contradicts the position of this innovator Haddaadi.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

I encourage everyone to learn who al-Haafidh ibn Rajab is. His works are a testament to his immense knowledge of hadith and his deep understanding of the way of the Salaf:

• https://kalamullah.com/ibn-rajab.html

Many, when seeking knowledge, often come across, or are referred to, his work The Virtue of the Salaf Over the Khalaf. It deals with the superiority of the Salaf over the Khalaf, which shows why he is a person of knowledge we should refer back to. He is a trustworthy scholar, and due to his insightful knowledge of the Salaf, he also authored a treatise refuting those who claim to follow other than the four imams of the madhhabs.

So let me cite some key and important paragraphs:

>If a pretentious fool says: "How can people be confined to the statements of certain scholars and be prevented from ijtihaad or taqleed other than them among the imams of the Deen?"

>It should be said to him: "Just as the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) united the people on one letter [حرفٍ] from letters [حُروف] of the Qur'an and prevented people from the other Qiraa'ah in all countries, because they saw that the public interest is only achieved in that way, and if people were left to recite based on various readings, they would fall into major pitfalls."

>Similarly, in the issues of rulings and fatawa concerning what is lawful and prohibited, if people are not restricted to the sayings of a limited number of imams, it would lead to the corruption of the Deen. Every pretentious fool who seeks leadership would consider himself among the rank of the mujtahids and might introduce an opinion attributing it falsely to some of the Salaf; perhaps by misinterpreting it, as often happened with some of the Dhaahiriyyah, or that opinion might be a zallah [i.e. mistaken opinion that cannot be considered valid] from one of the Salaf that a group of Muslims have unanimously agreed to abandon. The best interest is nothing but what Allah has decreed and destined, which is to unify people on the madhhabs of these well-known [four] imams, may Allah be pleased with them all.

>If it is said, "The difference between unifying people one letter [حرفٍ] from letters [حُروف] of the Qur'an and unifying them on the statements of the four fuqahaa' is that the seven readings can be said to have one or similar meanings, and the meaning is confined to this letter [الحرف]. This is unlike the statements of the four fuqahaa'; it's possible they agree on something and the truth lies outside their consensus."

>It is said in response, "Some scholars have refuted this and said: Surely, Allah would not have unified this Ummah on misguidance." And there are ahaadeeth that support this view.

(Relevant)

Remember, he is the great scholar who also explained the Forty Hadith of imam an-Nawawi, and his explanation is considered among the best, if not the best. In the introduction, al-Haafidh ibn Rajab had favorable words for imam an-Nawawi.

He is indeed a thorn against the ignorance of the Haddaadiyyah sect, which explains their aversion to this scholar of Ahlus-Sunnah, as his position contradicts their false foundations and their disparagement of imam an-Nawawi. This alone would also inadvertently and implicitly accuse al-Haafidh ibn Rajab of grave ignorance. Perhaps soon we will hear them openly accusing him of ignorance, while imagining that the non-scholars of the Haddaadiyyah have somehow surpassed him in knowledge.

See what this Haddaadi is saying, with my emphasis:

>I ask you by Allaah and I ask you by your tawheed that you read what I will type carefully and realize that this is a matter of Islam and kufr, tawheed and shirk, not a matter of "correct" and "slightly more correct"

(Source)

This phrase, "I ask you by your tawheed," would correspond in Arabic to "أسألك بتوحيدك". Yet this wording is normally used in the context of tawassul directed to Allah, and here it is being addressed to other than Allah.

In Arabic, an accepted form of Shar'i tawassul would be, for example:

>... اللهم إني أسألك بتوحيدك واتباعي لنبيك، وطاعتي لك أن تغفر لي

Meaning:

>"O Allah, I ask You by Your Tawheed, my following of Your Prophet, and my obedience to You, that You forgive me..."

The known and acceptable usage of this type of wording is in du'aa' to Allah, such as: "اللهم إني أسألك بتوحيدك". So when someone says to a created person, "I ask you by your tawheed," the expression becomes strange and careless, especially from someone trying to speak about tawheed and shirk with severity.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said:

>As for the reading with the genitive case, a group of the Salaf said: it refers to their saying, "I ask you by Allah and by kinship." This is informing of their asking, and it may be said that it is not evidence for its permissibility. But if it is evidence for its permissibility, then the meaning of his saying, "I ask you by kinship," is not swearing by kinship, since swearing by it here is not permissible. Rather, it is because of kinship, meaning that kinship obligates certain rights between its people, just as the three men asked Allah, the Exalted, by their righteous deeds, and just as we ask by the supplication and intercession of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

(Source)

Tawassul through tawheed, eemaan, and righteous deeds is directed to Allah, not to a created person. So when someone addresses another human being with "I ask you by your tawheed," the wording becomes strange, ambiguous, and blameworthy. If he intended it as an oath-like appeal by something other than Allah, then it becomes even more problematic, since oaths are not to be made by other than Allah.

The Haddaadi continued by referencing the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them):

>... they have never obligated anyone to follow a madhab and have never punished anyone for following a madhab unlike the contemporary misguided innovators today do

Imagine him speaking like this, as though he has somehow surpassed al-Haafidh ibn Rajab. Alhamdulillah, this Haddaadi was already refuted before he was even born.

This ignorant one has inadvertently lied against the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) but this is not surprising, given that he is not a person of hadith. Let us look instead at the teacher of imam al-Bukhaari, the great scholar ibn al-Madini, who spoke about the fact that the Sahaabah themselves had madhhabs. See pages 140 to 145:

>‘Ali said: Among the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) there were only three who had followers who would issue fatwas based on their opinions in fiqh: ‘Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Zayd ibn Thaabit, and ibn ‘Abbaas. Each of these men had followers who would stand by their words and issue fatwas to the people.

>The followers of ‘Abdullah who would read in his qiraa’ah and issue fatwas based on his words and follow his school of thought were: Alqamah ibn Qays, al-Aswad ibn Yazeed, Masrooq ibn al-Ajda', ‘Abeedah as-Salmaani, ‘Amr ibn Shurahbeel, and Haarith ibn Qays - these six. Ibraheem an-Nakha’i counted them and said: The followers of ‘Abdullah who would teach people in his qiraa’ah and issue fatwas were six: Alqamah, al-Aswad, Shurooq... counting these six.

>The most knowledgeable of the people of Kufah about the followers of ‘Abdullah, their method [طريقتهم], and their madhhab were Ibraheem and ash-Sha'bi. However, ash-Sha'bi followed the madhhab of Masrooq; he would take from ‘Ali, the people of Madinah, and others. And Ibraheem would follow the madhhab of his companions; these followers of ‘Abdullah.

How is he this unread?

The Haddaadi continues:

>Those humans were obligated as much as you were obligated to learn the Quraan and the sunnah and to know the evidence of each thing you say and do,

This is exactly what I had initially suspected, alhamdulillah, as I said before:

>Perhaps the Haddaadiyyah require laypeople to examine the evidence in matters of subsidiary fiqh, thereby resembling the Qadariyyah and contradicting the ijmaa' of the Sahaabah!

(Source)

He is indeed resembling the Qadariyyah and opposing the ijmaa' of the Sahaabah. Again, let us quote what imam ibn Qudaamah said regarding taqleed:

>For this reason, taqleed is permissible in such matters; rather, it is obligatory upon the layperson.

>Some of the Qadariyyah held that the common people are also required to examine the evidence in matters of subsidiary fiqh. This is false by the consensus of the Companions, for they used to give fatwas to the common people and did not command them to attain the level of ijtihaad. This is known by necessity and through mass transmission from their scholars and common people.

The rest of his comments are so nonsensical that they do not warrant any further attention. What I have already put forward of scholarly evidences should be enough for anyone to see the debacle of the Haddaadiyyah's ignorance, pretentiousness, and reckless disparagements, as my previous posts have already shed light upon.

Again, I must highlight that in Lum'at al-I'tiqaad, imam ibn Qudaamah said:

>As for affiliating oneself to an imam in the branches of the Deen, such as the four groups, then this is not blameworthy. Difference in the branches is mercy, and those who differ therein are praiseworthy in their differing, rewarded for their ijtihaad. Their differing is vast mercy, and their agreement is a decisive proof.

This necessarily includes the Hanafi madhhab, since it is one of the four recognized madhhabs. So for someone to speak as though affiliation to a madhhab is blameworthy in itself is not only reckless, but contrary to what imam ibn Qudaamah explicitly stated. (Source)

This vile Haddaadi said in reference to imam Abu Haneefah:

>He means: He has no knowledge

Again, due to their inability to accurately convey context, this is not even what the Arabic says. The context of the source is al-'Ilal, meaning reports and discussions connected to defects, narrations, narrators, and transmitted statements in that genre. This is precisely where their manipulation occurs: they quote isolated criticisms, strip them from their context, ignore the nature of the source, and then present them as though they constitute the final word of Ahlus-Sunnah regarding imam Abu Haneefah.

The Haddaadiyyah also fail to reconcile such reports with the many favorable statements of scholars regarding imam Abu Haneefah, his fiqh, his madhhab, and the fact that the Hanafi madhhab is one of the four recognized madhhabs of Ahlus-Sunnah. Instead of presenting the matter with knowledge, balance, and justice, they weaponize selected reports to feed their reckless disparagements.

Again, we have the scholarly work of Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani:

• Musnad al-Imam Abi Haneefah

Yet the Haddaadiyyah would rather give more weight to Israa'eeliyyaat, such as the claim that the earth rests upon a bull, than acknowledge what is directly in front of them from the works of the scholars. This is far more removed, far more outrageous, and far more revealing of their broken standards.

This vile Haddaadi says:

>Them being correct in one matter does not make their madhab correct as the salaf have even said that an innovator calling to his innovation can be of much worship, not making him any better and not lightening the disaster at all

(Source)

You will be shocked at how far removed this Haddaadi is from Ahlus-Sunnah when you see how many times he contradicts the scholars. He tries to drag the discussion into the category of innovators calling to their innovation, as though this somehow applies to the madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah. This is strikingly reminiscent of the second false principle of Rabee' al-Madkhali:

• https://student.faith/articles/al-madkhali.html

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

I've been threatened by an online Haddaadi figure, also known as Bashem, who has attempted to expose my identity and personal information. Not only has he threatened me with life-threatening circumstances, he has also invoked Allah against me, praying for curses and harm to befall me.

The series of articles and posts we have worked on and continue to publish address lies, manipulations, and misrepresentations of past scholars. We have also exposed how the Haddaadiyyah deliberately hide context and the correct positions of scholars regarding the very imams they disparage. The context of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah toward those imams was never one of disparagement, but rather scholarly critique conducted with knowledge and justice.

Referencing respected scholars and advanced students of knowledge in critique of Haddaadiyyah figures on YouTube has been one reason this individual has threatened me. This hostility extended even to trivial matters, such as speculation about my age by a fellow moderator, which the Haddaadi seized upon in a laughable attempt to disparage me. He titled it as though "someone accidentally leaked" my approximate age, even though there was no accident and no leak to begin with, as that moderator has no personal contact with me and does not know my age. Alhamdulillah, I paid no mind, finding it entertaining that they imagined they had "exposed" me, even though no moderator privately knows my age, and even my closest moderators do not know it. I highlight this only to demonstrate the absurdity of their personal attacks.

The larger issue is their attempt to coerce me by threatening to expose my identity and personal information. Such behavior constitutes "doxing" and is a direct violation of platform policies. For him to claim, "I will hire a moral hacker to hack cn3m," and to assert, "I have money and I'll hire ethical hackers against them," I respond with "حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل," placing my trust fully in Allah.

I am certain about the deviation of the Haddaadiyyah sect. Like any other sect that attempts to bring "criticisms" against the people of Islam, their efforts are never in their favor. Their ability to use technology to search for keywords in their attempts to disparage imams such as Abu Haneefah, an-Nawawi, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, and al-Haafidh as-Suyooti should not overwhelm anyone. They have no scholarly precedence in the manner they present their arguments.

Their weakness is in the very sources they rely upon, especially in the context of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, as they are unable to reconcile why the very scholars they attempt to cite from also have favorable words for imam Abu Haneefah. Attempts to quote figures such as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah or al-Haafidh ibn Katheer, while ignoring their favorable statements regarding imam Abu Haneefah, only reveal yet again their lies, manipulations, lack of context, and lack of scholarly precedence. Even recent or contemporary scholars they may cite often have favorable words for these imams.

Their misuse of Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani's works is another example of their cognitive dissonance, given that he authored Musnad al-Imam Abi Haneefah. The embarrassment is evident, but the blind will remain blind unless they remove themselves from lustful desires, for Allah will guide the sincere.

Regarding my personal security, I am confident that my identity will not be revealed through these threats. Part of my professional background is in IT security, including practical awareness of operational security, privacy hardening, threat modeling, and defensive measures against common attack vectors. Before my devices are even connected to the internet, they are configured with security precautions in place, and the systems I use are selected and maintained with privacy and security as core considerations.

I have also provided consultations on these matters, ranging from personal security practices to enterprise-level security concepts, including both offensive and defensive security disciplines, commonly referred to in the industry as red teaming and blue teaming. This is why it is quite amusing to see hateful individuals feel emboldened by the idea of "exposing" my identity or compromising my systems, while my devices, accounts, site, and general digital footprint are already treated with threat actors, attack surfaces, and possible attack vectors in mind.

I do not need to disclose private conversations I have had with security professionals in order to prove my position in this field. The point is simple: these threats are not intimidating. They are more entertaining than concerning. If anything, he should be more concerned about his own accounts and platforms being reported, restricted, banned, or shut down due to his own violations of platform policies and terms of service. Threatening to expose someone's identity, speaking about hiring hackers, and attempting to intimidate others online are not signs of strength. They are liabilities he has created for himself.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Time and again, the Haddaadiyyah display their illiteracy and lack of any scholarly precedent, only exposing their incompetence for all to see.

One of them said:

>Aside from so many fake narrations the sheikh brought that he's oblivious to the fact that most, if not all of them, come from a liar whom Abu Umar Ad-Daraqutni (died 385AH) said: "He wrote a book about the praise of Abu Haneefa, it is full of lies"

>That person's called Makram ibn Ahmad

>This is enough to literally dismiss 70% of the video

(Source)

He completely conflates Abu al-Hasan al-Daaraqutni with a non-existent individual called Abu 'Umar ad-Daaraqutni. How is he unable to read the very source he cited? The gift that keeps on giving.

The issue, once again, is the pretentiousness of the Ruwaybidah, speaking so openly as though they have uncovered something the scholars were unaware of, or as though the scholars were deliberately deceiving the Ummah by remaining silent about imam Abu Haneefah.

Yet we see the opposite: imam Abu Haneefah is praised, respected, and defended.

Their abuse of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel

The area these Haddaadiyyah misuse and abuse is al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, without any formal introduction to what this science is, how contemporary scholars have addressed it and studied it, and most importantly, what its principles are.

They cite statements from the books of the Salaf, strip them of their context, then make inferences and projections that do not conform to the principles of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.

So if the scholars have said, regarding the very hadith we are all keen to return to, learn, live by, and prioritize over everything else:

>"Hadith is a cause of misguidance except for the fuqahaa'."

How, then, are we supposed to approach the statements of the scholars if even hadith can be described in such a way?

And who was it that said hadith can cause misguidance except for the fuqahaa'? None other than ibn 'Uyaynah. He intended by that: "that others may carry something upon its apparent meaning, while it has an interpretation indicated by another hadith, or a proof which is hidden from him, or it may be a narration that has been abandoned for reasons, matters which none are capable of except one who has become vast (in knowledge) and attained understanding (in the Shari'ah)." (Source)

The Ruwaybidah of the Haddaadiyyah do not even have any contemporary imam in hadith, yet they attempt to cite, extrapolate, and derive rulings from the narrations of the Salaf by themselves.

Rather, they fall under what ibn Wahb warned against when he said: "Every companion of hadith who has no imam in fiqh is misguided. And were it not that Allah saved us by Maalik and al-Layth, we would have gone astray." (Source)

They get ahead of themselves, putting themselves forward before the scholars, while having no connection whatsoever with actual living scholars. Rather, they do not even have teachers under whom they study, except those who are considered leading figures of misguidance and who are not scholars in the first place.

Knowledge is taken from scholars, not merely from pages

Taking knowledge directly from scholars has its distinction and virtue. In this regard, shaykh Bakr ibn 'Abdullah Abu Zayd (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

>Receiving knowledge from shaykhs: The foundation in seeking knowledge is that it should be through direct instruction and learning from teachers, by taking from the mouths of men and not from pages and the insides of books.

>It has been said: "Whoever enters into knowledge alone, leaves it alone," meaning: whoever enters the pursuit of knowledge without a teacher leaves it without knowledge. Knowledge is a craft, and every craft requires a craftsman, so it is necessary in learning it to have a skilled teacher.

>This is almost a point of consensus among the people of knowledge, except for a few who deviated, such as 'Ali ibn Ridwan al-Misri, the physician (d. 453 AH). The scholars of his time and those after them refuted him. Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his biography of him: "He did not have a teacher. Rather, he occupied himself with learning from books, and he even authored a book on acquiring knowledge of the discipline from books, claiming that they are more suitable than teachers. This is a mistake." End quote. As-Safadi elaborated in al-Waafee in refuting him.

>The practical, observable proof of the invalidity of ibn Ridwan’s view is that you will find thousands of biographies and historical accounts, across different eras, lands, and fields of knowledge, filled with the mention of teachers and students, whether few or many.

>Al-Waleed said: Al-Awzaa'ee used to say, "This knowledge was once noble, passed directly between men. But when it entered the books, those who were not qualified entered into it."

End quote, adapted from Hilyat Taalib al-'Ilm.

Their misuse of contemporary scholars

To prove my point, especially since this liar himself has cited this scholar in other contexts, observe how manipulative he is with his false inferences, which are nothing like how shaykh ‘Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr explains the matter:

>The Difference Between al-Bukhaari’s Selections in His Saheeh and the Hanafi Madhhab

>The difference between the hadiths in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and the Shaafi’ee madhhab is not significant; there is a great deal of closeness between the two. Therefore, when someone who is Shaafi’ee or Hanbali explains the book, no strong bias is usually apparent. However, when the commentator is Hanafi, and many of the hadiths in the book contradict his madhhab, there may appear some partisanship in his explanation, due to the large gap between the two positions.

>Al-Kirmani, ibn Hajar, and others have noted in several places that when imam al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) says, “Some people have said”, he is referring to the Hanafis. This indicates that there are major differences between imam al-Bukhaari’s choices and the Hanafi madhhab (may Allah have mercy on Abu Haneefah).

>This also clarifies why bias is more evident in al-'Ayni’s commentary and less so in ibn Hajar’s explanation. This is something that should be noted, so that no one interprets the hadiths in a way contrary to what the author intended, just to align with their own madhhab.

>There is no doubt that the madhhab of Abu Haneefah is a respected and followed school, with its own foundations rooted in the Book and Sunnah. Though it may differ from other schools in some principles, the shared foundations upon which deduction and reasoning are based are generally close. However, some foundational principles uniquely relied upon by the Hanafis may create a noticeable gap between them and others.

(Source)

As previously noted, the Haddaadiyyah sect tends to be inconsistent when quoting contemporary scholars. For instance, when shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr was asked about Kitaab as-Sunnah by Abdullah ibn Ahmad, he responded:

>... In the book as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on them), there are weak reports, and this is the case in many of the works of the early scholars, where the author did not necessarily adhere strictly to authenticity in all reports.

>What is mentioned regarding imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him) is part of the broader context of criticizing innovators. Criticism of innovators at the time was significant because the innovations were still recent, and it was easier to turn away from them. However, when dealing with an innovator, it is clear that the innovator is in opposition to the Sunnah. Innovations vary in severity, some of which are blasphemous and some are not. The one who follows a heretical innovation that leads to disbelief should be treated as a disbeliever, especially if they are obstinate and there is no confusion or doubt remaining about the truth. If the doubt was removed and the truth was made clear to them, but they still persisted in their stance, they are treated in the same manner as disbelievers.

>On the other hand, if the person has genuine doubts, and no one has been able to remove them, or if their doubt is strong and they are excused due to their ignorance, then the matter is different. There are factors that must be taken into account.

>In any case, imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him) remains one of the great imams of the Muslims, and the reports about him, especially regarding innovation, are meant to serve as a warning against innovations that arose during his time.

(Source)

Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr also said:

>So, may Allah have mercy on him, informed us about the beliefs of the Salaf and narrated from imam Abu Haneefah an-Nu’man ibn Thaabit al-Koofi, and his two companions Abu Yoosuf Ya'qoob ibn Ibraaheem al-Humayri al-Ansari, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybaani (may Allah be pleased with them), what they believed regarding the Usool ad-Deen and what they adhered to in worshiping the Rabb al-'Aalameen.

(Source)

To use the name of shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr to disparage great imams such as Abu Haneefah, Abu Yoosuf, ash-Shaybaani, an-Nawawi, as-Suyooti, and others is a misuse of his name.

In fact, it is a lie against him, as he does not resort to the kind of disparagement that the Haddaadiyyah sect employs against these great imams.

Their selective use of ibn Katheer

Notice how he has previously attempted to infer from al-Haafidh ibn Katheer's statement by deliberately being selective and leaving out the full context:

>Among such examples is when al-Bukhaari says about a man: "They remained silent about him" or "There is some consideration regarding him". This indicates that the person holds one of the lowest and most unfavorable positions in his view. However, al-Bukhaari was subtle in his wording when criticizing narrators, so this should be understood accordingly.

This is among al-Bukhaari's subtle and respectful ways of speaking about major scholars. When he says, "They remained silent about him" or "about his hadith", he is indicating the weakness of a narrator's hadith in a respectful manner. (Source)

The same al-Haafidh ibn Katheer ash-Shaafi'ee said in al-Bidaayah (10/110):

>"Imam Abu Haneefah... the faqeeh of Iraq, one of the leading imams of Islam, among the distinguished and prominent scholars, one of the pillars of knowledge, and one of the four imams whose madhhabs are followed. He was the earliest of them to pass away."

The same imam ash-Shaafi'ee also said about imam Abu Haneefah:

>"Whoever wants to learn fiqh should adhere to Abu Haneefah and his companions, for all people are dependent upon him in matters of fiqh."

(Source) (Relevant)

All of this should suffice as evidence to disprove the way this liar tries to falsely infer that scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah engage in disparagement the way he does, reflecting the approach of the Haddaadiyyah sect to which he belongs. His so-called "refutations" carry no weight whatsoever, alhamdulillah.

That is why this liar refuses to acknowledge that the contemporary scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah whom he misuses in his arguments do not share his views, nor do they engage in disparaging the great imams whom he considers misguided.

He is like a Raafidhi who selectively quotes from Ahlus-Sunnah sources, as if such cherry-picked citations somehow validate the Raafidhah and discredit Ahlus-Sunnah. This is a form of taqiyyah he resorts to, which makes him just as vile in his approach as the Raafidhah are toward Ahlus-Sunnah.

His claim of being from Ahlus-Sunnah is therefore a lie, just like the Mu'attilah who falsely claim to be from Ahlus-Sunnah.

>Al-Haafidh ibn Taymiyyah counted Abu Haneefah, his companion Abu Yoosuf, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan among "the people of knowledge who spend their nights and days in pursuit of knowledge, having no ulterior motive with anyone. Rather, they sometimes favor the opinion of this companion, and at other times the opinion of that companion, according to what they see as supported by the evidences of the Shari‘ah." He then listed the names of their contemporaries.

>He also explicitly stated in another part of the same book that: "Abu Haneefah and his companions are among those in this Ummah who are remembered with truthful praise by its scholars."

(Source)

Conclusion

Ahlus-Sunnah are always respectful towards scholars. They differentiate between scholarly critique made in a specific context and the way misguided sects quote selectively from the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.

This is why the Haddaadiyyah fail in their attempt to quote statements that appear extraordinary. Notice, once again, their inability to provide context, explain why scholars issued scholarly critique in certain places, and acknowledge why those same imams were praised elsewhere.

Their inferences, projections, and comments do not conform at all to the foundational principles upheld by the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.

Alhamdulillah, the truth is clear.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

How Seeking Knowledge Cultivates Taqwa and Manners

Seeking knowledge is a great blessing in Islam, and its benefits cannot be overstated. Its virtues could be expanded upon for days, even in a series of lectures. However, one of the greatest purposes of seeking knowledge is that it leads the seeker to taqwa of Allah. It is through pursuing the sciences of Islam that we come to know Allah, and learning about Him leads to taqwa.

Among the blessings of seeking knowledge is that Allah makes the path to Jannah easy for the seeker, as is well known in the hadith. Through seeking knowledge, you will not only learn the Deen of Allah, but also manners, conduct, and behavior. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Indeed, I was only sent to perfect noble manners." Narrated by al-Bukhaari in al-Adab al-Mufrad (273). How else does one learn these except by studying from the scholars? This has been the tradition of the early scholars, for we are dealing with the knowledge of the Deen of Allah. Respect is given to the one who carries it and teaches it.

Ibraaheem ibn Habeeb ibn ash-Shaheed said: My father said to me: "My son, go to the fuqahaa' and the scholars, learn from them, and take from their manners, character, and guidance, for that is more beloved to me for you than a great deal of hadith." (Source)

We also see the scholars being keen to pray at night, read the Qur'an, memorize it, and have the best of manners. Who else do they try their best to emulate except the best of mankind, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about what most often causes people to enter Paradise. He said: "Taqwa of Allah and good character." Narrated by at-Tirmidhi (2004). Therefore, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) were also known to have the best of character, and these characteristics were taught to their students, whom we call the Taabi'een, and such were the Salaf. They had great keenness in learning the narrations of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

We know that imam al-Bukhaari has a book on manners, and that alone is a testament to the scholars' keenness to learn good manners. The narrations about good manners are plentiful, and this emphasis has been passed down generation after generation. Hence, Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are known for this as well.

Certainly, when it comes to individuals, they may have unique characteristics for which they are known. However, the scholars' overall characteristics have always included keenness to have the best of manners. One unique example from the Salaf is that of al-A'mash, although this was an exception rather than the norm. This shows that benefiting from a scholar does not mean claiming that every personal trait or momentary action of his is ideal. Rather, the point is that a student should not abandon benefit because of a personal shortcoming that does not define the scholar. Case in point, imam ash-Shaafi'ee reported:

>Two men used to regularly visit al-A'mash. One of them was concerned with hadith, while the other was not concerned with hadith. One day, al-A'mash became angry with the one who was concerned with hadith, so the other said, "If he became angry with me as he became angry with you, I would not return to him."

>Al-A'mash then said, "In that case, he would be a fool like you, leaving what benefits him because of my bad character."

(Source)

The unique characteristics of scholars, even when they behave in a way that may seem somewhat out of the ordinary, should not deter anyone from learning from them, so long as they are still known for overall good conduct.

Here, I am not referring to vileness in speech, nor to behavior so repugnant that a person becomes characterized by it. Rather, I am referring to a little roughness here and there, or perhaps a momentary shortcoming.

Hence, in the same source of the book I cited, it is reported from the Salaf: "The example of one who becomes angry with a scholar is like the example of one who becomes angry with the pillars of the mosque." (Source)

Books have been written on the characteristics of huffaadh, and in this context, I am referring to those who have memorized the Qur'an, and that is only one example of how one should have the best conduct as it relates to the Deen of Allah. Likewise, there are books about the characteristics of students, judges, and so on.

The only challenge is when learning is primarily taken through books without teachers, and one of the great harms is when one learns his Deen mainly through the internet. While there is certainly great benefit in books and online resources, the seeker of knowledge will unfortunately miss greatly on how he conducts himself under a teacher, how he studies, how he behaves with other students, even how one sits with a scholar, and many other details of good conduct.

Scholars and students of knowledge have been keen to highlight this, and alhamdulillah, much of it has been clarified. We are in no way deprived of this knowledge or of understanding the importance of good conduct, especially for one who claims to tread the straight path, and ultimately, the path to Jannah.

This is by no means to suggest that being learned makes one infallible, whether in conduct or understanding. However, by seeking knowledge under a teacher, one learns good characteristics through observation, and the teacher may also admonish his students regarding good manners.

Each of these points has evidence in our Deen, alhamdulillah. Such a general overview cannot be denied or opposed by anyone. Even the misguided will concede to these points.

Seeking Knowledge in Stages and Understanding the Rank of Scholars

We also have, alhamdulillah, books on who a scholar is, the amount of knowledge required to give verdicts, fatawa, who is regarded as a mujtahid, and other related matters. Just as we come to learn that there are mufassireen, we also come to learn that there are scholars who specialize in certain areas while others do not. Hence, we learn that being a muhaddith does not necessarily mean that one has reached the rank of a faqeeh in deriving rulings, though this does not diminish the honor and respect that the people of hadith deserve. How fitting to cite the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):

>نَضَّرَ اللَّهُ امْرَأً سَمِعَ مِنَّا حَدِيثًا فَحَفِظَهُ حَتَّى يُبَلِّغَهُ غَيْرَهُ، فَرُبَّ حَامِلِ فِقْهٍ إِلَى مَنْ هُوَ أَفْقَهُ مِنْهُ، وَرُبَّ حَامِلِ فِقْهٍ لَيْسَ بِفَقِيهٍ

>"May Allah brighten the face of a person who hears a hadith from us, memorizes it, and conveys it to others. For perhaps one who carries fiqh conveys it to one who is more understanding than him, and perhaps one who carries fiqh is not a faqeeh."

(Source)

The scholars were keen to know their teachers, what they studied, the biographies of scholars, and even their mistakes, whether minor or grave. These matters were also highlighted. However, even when a scholar made serious mistakes, if his goodness, knowledge, and service to Islam outweighed his errors, then his virtue was not erased because of those mistakes. The details of such mistakes were not presented openly in an unrestricted manner. Rather, scholars would teach their students gradually, after having established them upon the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah. Then the branches of the sciences of Shari'ah would be taught in their proper time and manner. This does not mean that mistakes are concealed or justified. Rather, they are addressed with knowledge, justice, context, and proper conduct.

This is similar to when misguided individuals attempt to cast aspersions or doubts in a gathering where a scholar is teaching his students. The scholar may give a rebuttal in order to prevent confusion from spreading. Many topics in the Deen of Allah, especially those related to deeper matters, were taught by scholars to their students in private sessions.

In recent times, however, some deeper topics have been discussed in open settings where not only students attend, but laypeople attend as well, even though they have not gone through the foundations that those students have already studied. This kind of open setting, where scholars speak in a candid manner, has led some laypeople to assume things about 'aqeedah that are far removed from what those scholars intended. This has resulted in many assuming that 'aqeedah is "technically dry," or that 'aqeedah is mainly about "refuting misguided sects," or other unfortunate misconceptions.

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd, the author of the well-known book Hilyatu Taalib al-'Ilm, was known to teach his students in private sessions. Other well-known scholars taught openly, such as shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen and many others. The internet has exacerbated certain issues, especially when speeches are clipped out of context. This is why we often see clips that are presented without their full context, even though they should be listened to in the complete setting in which the scholars intended their words to be understood.

This is why I have highlighted key elements that need to be emphasized in my articles on seeking knowledge. It cannot be emphasized enough that seeking knowledge is done in stages, similar to how fiqh under a madhhab is taught. There is an odd conception among many laypeople when it comes to many topics. Often, we see them saying things about the Deen of Allah that are far removed from how scholars addressed those matters. Scholars are also misrepresented to such an extent that it is made to seem as though scholars are followed merely for their names, or that scholars are simply people who always differ among themselves, or other extreme false notions, as if the scholars are being deified.

This is not to deny the benefit of books, recordings, or online resources. Rather, the point is that these means should not replace the tarbiyah, correction, and gradual instruction that come through teachers. This is the issue with learning the Deen of Allah primarily through the internet. We are then forced to address all the confusion and misconceptions that have unfortunately become widespread. Therefore, programs were created and other courses were suggested in order to facilitate foundational knowledge for ordinary Muslims. As for anyone who is keen to go further, then more guidance is given by the help of Allah.

• Reflections on What I've Seen Over the Past 20 Years
• When People Claim the Salaf Without the Path of the Salaf

The Misuse of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel and the Extremism of the Haddaadiyyah

The intent here is not to prevent legitimate criticism of mistakes, nor to claim that scholars are beyond correction. Rather, the intent is to distinguish between sincere scholarly correction and the reckless behavior of those who use the language of knowledge to belittle scholars, test ordinary Muslims, and spread suspicion against Ahlus-Sunnah.

The main point of this post is to highlight a very important issue: the science of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel is a subcategory of the science of hadith, namely mustalah al-hadith. As already mentioned, the sciences of Shari'ah are taught in stages.

Among the key matters a student learns in the sciences of hadith are the terminologies of the scholars of hadith, how they describe narrators, the reasons scholars may differ in grading hadith, what constitutes a connected hadith, and other intricate details related to this field. As the student of knowledge progresses, one of the areas he may study is al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, since it relates to the biographies and conditions of narrators. It is within this science that al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel comes into play.

However, for some odd reason, and this is something that has been addressed before, this science has been misused and abused by pretentious students of knowledge. They behave as though the same standards and principles can be applied literally and unrestrictedly to people today, in the same way they were applied during the time of the Salaf, when hadith was scattered, liars and misguided people appeared, and the scholars were required to test and examine narrators because of that.

What is even more troubling is when people act as though they can test Ahlus-Sunnah, let alone ordinary Muslims, with individuals or certain concepts in order to see where they stand. This has been warned against, and scholars have clarified that such behavior is forbidden. As shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin al-'Abbaad noted, among the reprehensible innovations of this time is testing Ahlus-Sunnah by individuals, leading to praise or blame based on agreement with the examiner. (Source) And as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah stated: "No one has the right to test people with an ambiguous expression that he himself has introduced, without clarifying its meaning." (Source)

One of the interesting observations regarding misguided people is that we often notice the same patterns. They get ahead of themselves and put forward their own identity before the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah. Their objective becomes as though their very person is now tied to the truth, and therefore whatever they say is treated as what constitutes the truth of what Allah wants from us.

They treat their "understanding" as though it is infallible, to such an extent that they bypass, disregard, and jump ahead of living scholars, and even recent scholars. They appoint themselves as being capable of presenting Islam and its matters, without any precedent from the scholars for the exact manner in which they address these points.

Rather, they misuse the ordinary Muslims' ignorance of the Arabic language. For example, we have the Haddaadiyyah sect claiming to uphold the Salaf, just as the Madkhaliyyah sect has done before, and still attempts to do. We see the same pattern with the Haddaadiyyah, as though they are able to extract knowledge from the Salaf, but here is the catch: without any need for scholars.

This inadvertently casts aspersions against the scholars, as though the scholars had not properly learned or conveyed the path of the Salaf. In reality, it is the Haddaadiyyah who come with strange conceptions and misrepresentations of the scholars, while presenting themselves as the ones capable of citing what they believe to be in their favor.

Misguidance is not always presented as something vile, ugly, and foul-smelling, such that you would run away from it as soon as you came near it. Rather, shaytan is ever deceptive. Elements of truth may be presented, but the underlying problem is that what they intend by those elements does not conform to the truth.

We have seen from the Madkhaliyyah sect how they cast aspersions against contemporary scholars and students of knowledge. However, the reprehensible innovation of the Haddaadiyyah sect is that they extended this misguidance even further by attacking scholars of the past, to the point that their attacks reached across the generations, from an early imam such as imam Abu Haneefah to later major scholars such as al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, and others besides them.

Al-'Allaamah 'Abdurrahman al-Mu'allimi (may Allah have mercy on him) said regarding those who stir up such matters against imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy upon him): "Wisdom dictates following what the scholars have practiced for approximately the last seven hundred years, drawing a veil over such matters and exchanging words of praise." End quote from at-Tankeel (1/101).

Hence, shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd said: "And with this, you come to know that the accursed initiative of declaring the imams—such as an-Nawawi, ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eed, and ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalaani—as disbelievers, or belittling their status, or labeling them as misguided innovators, all of this is the work of Shaytan. It is a gateway to misguidance and leading others astray, as well as corruption and spreading corruption. If the witnesses of the Shari‘ah are discredited, then what they testify to is also discredited. However, the ignorant and reckless do not comprehend nor do they verify." (Source)

The ignorance of some of the Haddaadiyyah has reached such a low level that they have even accused scholars of homosexuality. This alone is a testament to how misguidance has led them to such reprehensible character.

One scholar whom they accuse of homosexuality is imam as-Suyooti. Yet, you will not find the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah attributing this to the imam. Rather, we find the great scholar of hadith, shaykh Muhammad Adam al-Ethiopi, referring to him as "the haafidh" and explaining his poem when he said:

>I had begun writing a moderate-sized explanation of the poem entitled Nadhm ad-Durar fi 'Ilm al-Athar, by the haafidh Jalaal ad-Deen 'Abdur-Rahmaan ibn al-Kamaal Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Saabiq al-Khudayri, as-Suyooti ash-Shaafi'ee, who was born on the night of Sunday, at the beginning of Rajab in the year 849 AH, and died in the last part of the night before Friday, on the 19th of Jumaada al-Oola in the year 911 AH. His age was 61 years, 10 months, and 18 days.

(Source)

Imagine the contrast: some of the Haddaadiyyah had written a eulogy for the death of the Pope, an entire memorial article paying tribute to him, mentioning the precise date in both the Hijri and Gregorian calendars, as though his death had saddened them so deeply that they had to mourn it, while at the same time falsely claiming that shaykh 'Abdurrahman al-Barraak had passed away without providing any verifiable source. I have no further words.

What they fail to realize is that this accusation does not stop at imam as-Suyooti. It also implies that the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah misled the Ummah by praising him, teaching his works, explaining his writings, and recommending benefit from him. In reality, the scholars knew his mistakes, mentioned them with justice, and still preserved his rank. So the Haddaadiyyah are not merely attacking one scholar; they are indirectly attacking the judgment and trustworthiness of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.

Shaykh at-Tarifi recommended many books, among them works by imam as-Suyooti. (Source)

Countless other mashaayikh have also spoken favorably about imam as-Suyooti, such as shaykh ibn Jibreen, 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr, 'Abdullah al-Ghunayman, and the list goes on.

The issue is that the Haddaadiyyah are deliberately selective when highlighting the mistakes of scholars. Imam as-Suyooti is only one example. Scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have mentioned his mistakes, but they have never accused him of homosexuality.

When the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah highlight the mistakes of scholars, they do so within the bounds of good conduct. They do not do so to diminish their rank, erase their identity, or dissuade students from benefiting from their works, especially works that the scholars themselves continue to teach.

The shortsightedness of the allegation of homosexuality against imam as-Suyooti is clear from the weakness of the very source they rely upon. The passage they cite is completely different from the way they attempt to portray the imam. It was merely a grammatical reference involving a line of poetry from the Jaahiliyyah, and the intent was to prove a grammatical point, not to endorse the content of what was cited.

Even in other sources, that line of Jaahili poetry is not attributed to imam as-Suyooti, nor did it originate from him. Yet the Haddaadiyyah present it as though they have uncovered something that was somehow hidden from the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.

How ugly and vile this behavior is.

Even their own parents would distance themselves from this behavior. Their fathers have far greater respect for these scholars than they do. Hence, the Haddaadiyyah are known to create senseless division between parents and their children. Youth have reached out to me after realizing how much harm the Haddaadiyyah have caused within families.

Alhamdulillah, the more people see the position of actual scholars, the more they recognize how repugnant and deceptive the Haddaadiyyah have been. We should not be surprised when some of them admit that they consider their Muslim parents to be disbelievers or misguided, or when they use descriptions for their parents that are unbecoming of a Muslim and far removed from the way they were raised by those very parents.

This is why I am grateful to have started translating a work refuting the Haddaadiyyah sect, so that these misconceptions can be exposed with evidence.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

>Introduction

>Praise be to Allah, Rabb al-'Aalameen, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. To proceed:

>No rational person is unaware of the virtue of belonging to the Salaf of this Ummah in creed, methodology, and conduct. They are the lamps in darkness, the lights in the night, the bearers of knowledge, and the transmitters of hadith. Whoever reflects on their knowledge, worship, and conduct will see their superiority over those who came after them, and will give precedence to their statements over the statements of others.

>Among the things that cause sadness and regret is the deviation of some extremist trends from the path of the Salaf, while claiming affiliation and alleging adherence. They neither understood the way of the Salaf nor followed their path. Then, after all of this, they turned against Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah with hostility, defamation, and disparagement, and openly criticized their way and what they are upon. In doing so, they have come to oppose a methodology they claim to follow, and to demolish a structure they claim to be building. So we seek refuge with Rabb al-'Aalameen from misleading doubts and destructive innovations.

>I have seen three extremist trends, wearing the cloak of following the Salaf, whose murkiness has surfaced and whose foam has swelled along the course of the flood. All of them claim to follow the Salaf and trace their footsteps: one trend adopts a chain reaction of declaring people innovators, another adopts a chain reaction of takfeer, and a third adopts a chain reaction of shirk-labeling, permitting supplication to the jinn unrestrictedly on the claim that they are everywhere.

>You see them clinging to the slightest report from the Salaf to prove the validity of what they are upon, even if it clashes with the texts and the well-attested practice of the Salaf is established to be contrary to it. Discussing all of them in this treatise would scatter the purpose, prolong the journey, and fail to achieve the intended aim. The purpose of this treatise is only to refute those who engage in the chain reaction of tabdee', and every subject has its proper place.

>There is no doubt that the Salaf are only followed in what they agreed upon, what was widely transmitted among their groups, or what became established practice among them. So the statement of one individual after another is not to be taken when it contradicts the widely transmitted practice or consensus of the Salaf.

>The point becomes clear through an example, and the nature of the deviation in this matter becomes apparent: when a report is narrated that Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) boycotted Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) it is not said here that following Faatimah in boycotting as-Siddeeq is a correct path, while still preserving her status (may Allah be pleased with her). Rather, what is obligatory is to follow the consensus of the Companions and what became established practice among them. If a Raafidhi were to come and claim to be following Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) or say, "Was Faatimah a Raafidhi? Far be it from her," he would have no proof for his claim. This is by the consensus of Ahlus-Sunnah.

>The extremists of tabdee' have followed the path of the Raafidhah in this matter. Ibn Taymiyyah's comparison of those who declare scholars to be disbelievers with the Raafidhah and the Khawaarij will come later. You find one of them, for example, clinging to Taawoos' criticism of Qataadah while claiming to follow the Salaf, despite the widely transmitted praise of Qataadah by the Salaf, their commendation of him, their declaring him reliable, indeed their recognition of his imaamah. Another argues that Sufyan ath-Thawri refrained from praying over Mis'ar, while abandoning the consensus of the Salaf regarding his reliability and the inclusion of his narrations in the Saheeh collections, the Sunan, and the Musnads. Imam ad-Daarimi criticized this approach in al-Intiqaa', and clarified its misguidance and irregularity, as will come, by Allah's help.

>What led me to write this treatise was nothing other than the aggression of these extremists against the honor of the scholars, their diverting of the youth away from the correct path in seeking knowledge, and their preoccupying them with hearsay, gossip, and excessive argumentation. The matter did not stop there. Rather, it went beyond that to takfeer and judging as apostate those whom the Salaf had widely and consistently praised or whose virtue they acknowledged.

>When I examined the doubts raised by these extremists, and read their articles and what they had written, I was truly horrified by the methodology I saw from them, and alarmed by the principles I found them laying down. That is because they lead to impugning the imams of Ahlul-Hadith, such as al-Bukhaari; to audacity in objecting to the great imams, such as imam Ahmad; and they entail disparaging this Muhammadiyyah Ummah that has been shown mercy, which Allah has favored over all other nations. They also involve accusing all of its scholars after the passing of the virtuous generations of irjaa' or innovation, and plunging their followers into a whirlpool of tabdee' and takfeer.

>Everything I have mentioned has occurred from this Haddaadiyyah sect, as will come in the course of this treatise. The latest thing I came across shortly before the printing of this treatise was that some followers of this sect had gone so far as to declare their own head figures disbelievers. I had mentioned this before as a necessary implication that follows from their innovation, and now the necessary implication of yesterday has become the explicit statement of today. Thus, one of the head figures of the Haddaadiyyah who says about Ahlus-Sunnah that they are "domesticated" and "effeminate cowards" is, according to some of his own followers, a disbeliever and apostate, and refuge is sought with Allah.

>When I say this, I do not say it out of gloating or approval. Ahlus-Sunnah, while judging these extremists to be misguided and deviant, and while holding that they must be disciplined and that their tongues must be restrained from attacking the virtuous, nevertheless do not declare them disbelievers or judge them to be apostates. They proceed in a just manner in dealing with them. But in this context it is said: this is the work of their own hands and what they themselves have sown, and this is the reality of the principles they established and laid down.

This is the introduction to the book "متسلسلة التبديع الحدادية ( دراسة تأصيلية تحليلية مقارنة )" by shaykh Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Ameer.

Insha'Allah, going through it will be a beneficial journey for all of us, exposing how despicable they are, the vileness of their nature, and the ugliness of their behavior. Their conduct has reached such an extent that even their own parents would likely not approve of their writings. Rather, they would probably discipline them, reduce their online activity, or supervise it, since their actions and the filth they spew bring shame upon their families.

Perhaps they have no sense of modesty because they view even their parents with the same vileness with which they view other fellow Muslims, declaring them to be disbelievers. This is why, alhamdulillah, we will never see them holding any position in the masaajid except that they would be despised. Hence, their presence is mainly confined to social media and online spaces.

More will follow, and eventually, by the help of Allah, we hope to complete the entire book.