Narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira is the statement of Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam: “Sufficient for a man to be lying is that he narrates everything he hears.”
Imam An-Nawawi said: Lying is that a person states what opposes the factual (i.e. reality), hence he says such and such occurred yet he is lying. Or he says so and so said whilst he is a liar. Thus it is the declaring/stating of that which opposes the factual. [رياض الصالحين]
Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin said: Included in lying is the lying as it pertains to discourse among the people, circulating between the people. So he -the liar- says “I said to so and so this” yet he did not say it. Or he says “So and so said this” yet he did not say it. He says “So and so came” but he did not come. This (type of lying) is also prohibited and is a sign of hypocrisy, just as the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said: “The sign of the hypocrite are three. Whenever he speaks he lies…” til he -the sheikh- eventually said …Thus a person is prohibited from speaking in two circumstances. The first being that he -the speaker- knows the -factual- situation contradicts what he is saying, the second is that he speaks in a matter of which he has no knowledge. All of this is prohibited. [شرح رياض الصالحين]
This is a very important reminder in light of a recent tweet of Anwar Wright wherein lying is utilized in order to legitimize a fraudulent criticism against several Salafis. The dishonesty on his part is that which causes some -including myself- to have a low opinion of him due to the blatant and brazen contradiction of his speech with reality. His speech is as follows:
I’m amazed at a people who are vocal about Salafis and promote the Sa’fiqah agenda, but they were booted from a whatsapp group because of defending Shadeed saying ‘he’s erred, but we cannot take him out of Salafiyyah’! Jokes!
This is a clear twisting of what is factual on Anwar’s part, but unfortunately there will be some that have a bigoted love for him consequently making it impossible for them to accept that. Thus there are two other possibilities that could exonerate him from the previously mentioned crime.
- He did not see the entire discussion, on the contrary someone showed him selected comments that consisted of the possible meaning to which he understands.
- Just as the shameless cheerleader behind Al-Minhaj Magazine’s twitter account Anwar also must have been given too much credit in the intelligence department due to him being unable to differentiate between a defense of someone, and a caution from others exceeding limits as it pertains to passing rulings on people, specifically the ruling of tabdi. The language and usage of speech distinguishing one from the other is explicitly clear, making the one unable to discern one from the other being equivalent to one eating a yellow peeled fruit that’s as bitter as can be, yet calls it an orange when in reality it’s a lemon. Or on the level of a person that has two animals in front of him but cannot distinguish the horse from the donkey.
As for the first possibility it is less probable due to Anwar’s statement in another tweet: “Long arguments in this group about not making Tabdee’ of Shadeed, but when one clearly makes Tabdee’ on shaykh Abdullah…crickets!” The discussion in the group about Shadeed was long, and I imagine he took the time to read the comments, yet he utilizes sensationalism in order to trick the people into believing what did not occur. There was no defense of Shadeed on the contrary there was a cautioning from going beyond bounds as relates to Shadeed by passing rulings against him no scholar before them have passed. Simple. Thus Anwar is either a shameless liar, or the biggest buffoon involved in dawah today for not being able to distinguish between the two (which is highly unlikely), and Allah knows best.
The following is a question and its answer that sparked the conversation Anwar refers to in his tweet. The very inception of this conversation depicts the illegitimate assessment of Anwar and further indicates that he is either a shameless liar, or the biggest buffoon involved in Dawah today.
Questioner: I am aware of all his mistakes and I do not defend him in any of them, and I warn from him the same way you do, but my only question here is, are we qualified to precede the ulama in tabdee in this situation on an individual who’s salafiyyah was established?
Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi: So, then students are able to remove people from salafiyyah without referring back to the people of knowledge? I don’t believe anyone differs on how false his statements are and how they are -I believe Ilyaas meant to put “not” here- aligned with the manhaj of the Salaf, however mentioning his errors that we all are in agreement on, does not answer the question.
The question is do students and laymen have the right to remove someone from salafiyyah without referring back to the scholars?
Me (Najeeb Al Anjelesi): The answer is no. Plain and simple. That’s a new precedent I’ve never heard from people of knowledge and Allah knows best.
Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi: Refuting the errors and warning against him is one thing. Making rulings and removing him from Salafiyyah without going back to scholars is another. The two matters are very different.
The inception of this conversation illustrates the position of the admin of this Whatsapp group as this sentiment was recurring throughout this lengthy discussion. Thus the following understanding is extracted from the previously cited speech:
- Acknowledgement of the mistakes, errors, and misguidance of Shadeed.
- Cautioning against preceding the scholars in passing a ruling of tabdee, that being a stark contrast to defending Shadeed as Anwar ignorantly alleged.
- A distinction between refuting and warning against Shadeed and from declaring him to be an innovator (by students and laymen).
Therefore how can it be alleged that there was a defense of Shadeed in light of what was previously mentioned? How was he defended? Which mistakes of his were defended? Who defended him? Indeed this is a tremendous lie invented by the pitiful one Anwar that emphasizes the fact that he is willing to lie viciously in order to discourage the people from aiding and assisting those to which he harbors animosity. If this is not the case then he would have to be the biggest buffoon in dawah for his inability to distinguish between a defense and what was previously highlighted.
Sheikh Rabee said: “Lying is worse than innovation [in the religion], O brothers, and a liar is considered worse than an innovator by the People of Sunnah; an innovator [may] be narrated from-[The people of Sunnah] narrated from [some of] the Qadariyyah [sect], they narrated from the Murj’iah, and they nrrated from other than them from the different kinds of people of innovation, so long as the innovation did not fall into disbelief and the [narrator] was not a liar. If a liar were to say he was with the People of Sunnah, he would be considered by them to be of a lower level than the People of Innovation…” (1)
The following are some statements of the admin throughout the discussion to which Anwar references that clearly shows the stance of the admin and how it dramatically differs with the fabrication invented by Anwar and spread to the masses. They are as follows:
1: Do Not Proceed The Scholars
Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi -at one point in the discussion- said: And from my knowledge, there have been those who scholars saw doing worse than what Shadeed is doing and they did not make tabdee of them, rather they warned against their mistakes until the hujjah was established. Haajooree didn’t have CLEAR mistakes for years before tabdee was made of him? Halabi? Mashoor? Ma’ribi? Abdulrahman Abdulkhaliq? They did and they were CLEAR. Yet, which students went around preceding the scholars and making tabdee of them? This was left for the scholars. If you open this door for laymen, you will only see atrocities take place. Each one thinking he is qualified since the affair is “clear.”
He –Ilyaas– also said: What leniency is there in returning the affair back to scholars for a ruling on him instead of opening the door for anyone to enter into this field like this?
Abu Yusuf Khaleefah -at one point in the discussion- said: Tabdee is not for us, nor is Takfir.
He also said: Passing a ruling is for the people of knowledge.
Hisham Abouzeid -at one point in the conversation- said: I agree with this. It is unacceptable for students of knowledge to cross their limits and precede the scholars in this matter. And let there be no confusion regarding my stance on Shadeed I view him to be misguided and hold many of his positions to be deviant. However, to make tabdee is a different level.
I -myself- said during the course of the discussion: Sheikh Ubayd speaking against him is not the issue, the sheikh criticized him for something worse than what he’s being criticized for now, that being the Salafiyyah is not a card that will get you into jannah, yet with that he said “I fear he’s an Ikhwaani” which is not tabdee.
And many more statements of this nature recurring throughout the discourse that indicate the discouragement from preceding the scholars in matters of this nature. We stop where they stopped and say what they said. Also therein are clear statements acknowledging the mistakes of Shadeed with no excuses being made for him, thus where is the defense?
2: Acknowledgement Of Shadeed’s Mistakes
Abu Yusuf Khaleefah -during the discourse- said: Are the statements of Shadeed misguidance? Yes.
He also said throughout the discourse: Refuting errors and misguidance is a must.
Ilyaas Aidarus said: His misguidance is clear.
Hisham Abouzeid -during the discourse- said: If anyone wants to benefit us with highlighting more of Shadeed’s errors and refuting them through text, then please do so. I bear witness that this forum is open for accepting the truth irrespective of who it is for or who it is against.
And the statements in this regard are plentiful none of which has therein a defense or excuse being made for Shadeed’s errors.
3: Encouragement To Contact The Scholars
I-myself- said throughout the discourse: My advice, for the brothers who are in Saudi now, compile Shadeed’s statements and take it to one of the scholars but don’t precede them.
I also said: Thus my advice, for all the 966 country code holders, compile Shadeed’s statements and take it to the closest aalim for a definitive ruling, but don’t set an evil precedent by preceding them in a right that’s due to them.
Ilyaas Aidarus -at one point- said: But to say since it’s clear to us that he is upon falsehood, khalaas, we take him out? And if we say go back to the scholars for that then (the claim made against us) we are being lenient?
Khalil Davis -at one point- said: As Salaamu alaykum. Baarakallahu feekum brothers. I think the above advice from our brother Najeeb should suffice. Those who are now in Saudi compile his statements and take them to one of the scholars. I think too much time texting is being wasted along with time talking about Shadeed. Don’t dignify him by wasting all your precious words on him…
We clearly see that there is no defense of Shadeed, truthfully what we see is a cautioning from delving into matters that are not the place of small students of knowledge (like found here in the states) nor laymen. Sheikh Ahmad An-Najmi was asked: What are the guidelines as it relates to innovation, and when is it permissible for me to describe a person with it? He replied: “First, innovation is the introducing into the religion that which is not from it -til he eventually said- second, describing (others) with innovation and boycotting the innovator that is to whom the scholars have declared to be an innovator. So do not be hasty o you small students in passing rulings upon an individual -even though he may have innovation with him- until you present his case to the scholars, and they assist you in that affair. Outside of that do not indulge in anything regarding it (that affair).” [الفتاوى الجلية]
Thus this shows that once again Anwar has criticized Salafis over a non issue and likewise indulged in sensationalism in a cheap attempt to dupe his audience into believing the scenario was what it was not. Or maybe he really does not know the difference between a defense and cautioning from going beyond bounds as it relates to passing rulings of tabdi on others, hence making him equivalent to one who cannot distinguish between a donkey and a horse, and Allah knows best.
Written by Najeeb Al Anjelesi