Bismillah ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem
asalamu alaikum warahmatullah
It was put into my attention a while ago that the “clear” people (those who claim to be salafis with the additional bid’a attribution and clause of “clear” to differentiate themselves from the rest of the salafis for in their view the rest of the salafis are “not clear” and in reality render them hizbis but are not clear enough to boldly state this so they call themselves clear in order to not be clear to the rest of the salafis) basically threw Shadeed Muhammad to the curve, over something that may or may not be a fasida (vice) worth having being injured like this brother has been injured. I didn’t know this happened and I didn’t pay much attention to it until I came across a thread on Ahya and so I went to ST to see if this was true.
Now, please forgive me brothers and sisters, my foundational principle is generally not to preoccupy myself with useless qeela wa qaal (he say she say) as salafitalk is engulfed in, but I felt that the honor and fadheela that Shadeed Muhammad offered to the Muslims in general and the people of the sunnah in particular was worth his defense
The Original Clause as Claimed by Shadeed Muhammad (according to the narrative Abu Hasan Malik)
On the Salafitalk forum he states the following
|Clarification Concerning Some of Shadeed
Muhammad’s False Reports and Unverified NarrationsWritten by Abul-Hasan Maalik Ibn Aadam
“And O my people! Act according to your ability and way, and I am acting (on my way). You will come to know who it is on whom descends the torment that will cover him with ignominy, and who is a liar! And watch you! Verily, I too am watching with you.”
‘Abdullaah Ibnul-Mubaarak said,
In his recent clarification of events, Shadeed Muhammad, may Allaah guide him, has mentioned a number of false reports and unverified narrations. Statements that mention supposed discussions and actions of which Shadeed Muhammad was not present in and are therefore second hand reports, and therefore he needs to qualify these statements and reports on reliable witnesses with his chain of narrators back to those individuals and reports. We have seen his relating false information and a blatant lie that Hasan as-Somali, ‘Abdul-Ilaah, and ‘Abdul-Walee Nelson went to Shaykh ‘Ubayd al-Jaabiree and informed him as to his going to the cinema in Tobago.
Before mentioning the clarification of Shaykh ‘Ubayd al-Jaabiree that this is an untruth that he invented upon our brothers, it should be asked of Shadeed Muhammad to name those who related this (and other unverified reports) to him and to clarify that this is inaccurate.
Shadeed said on page 7,
and then this is where he quotes Abu Zubayr Shadeed Muhammad
|“So Abdulilah, along with Abdul Wali Nelson from Philadelphia and Hasaan Somali, went to Sheikh ‘Ubayd and told him that I went to the movies and apparently mentioned other things which, come to find out, were blatant lies. Sheikh ‘Ubayd said that I should not be giving da’wah. When I spoke to Hassan Somali about the incident he said: “Wallahi Shadeed I was not there when Abdulilah asked the question!” However, he admitted that he was aware of what the sheikh said shortly thereafter (the same night).”“The funny thing about all of this is that when Hassan Somali returned to America In July of 2010, he acted as if he didn?t know about the incident and definitely concealed the fact that he was there!!!”|
so then Abu Hasan Maalik says
|So we clearly see that even though Hasan as-Somali clarified to the brother that he was not present when the question was asked, Shadeed continued to rely upon his narration from his unnamed source. So yesterday on the 30th of July 2010CE, Hasan as-Somali contacted Shaykh ‘Ubayd al-Jaabiree and the following was asked and answered:|
so here is the statement of Shaykh Ubayd
|“First Question: Shadeed Muhammad claimed, may Allaah guide him, in an article that he posted on the internet that the brother ‘Abdul-Ilaah, the brother ‘Abdul-Walee from Philadelphia, and Hasan as-Somali went to Shaykh ‘Ubayd and informed him that he (i.e. Shadeed) went to the movies and he said ‘that which is apparent is that they mentioned other things which were blatant lies.’ What is the authenticity of these words?Answer: In the name of Allaah and all praise is due to Allaah; and may Allaah send peace and salutations upon the Messenger, his Family and his Companions. Verily, this person called Shadeed Muhammad from America is an individual that is lost and the Muslim males and females are not advised to listen to his lectures. It has been established by the reports of trustworthy individuals that he visited Trinidad and after the lecture or classes he went to the movies. One of the people who informed us of this was our brother and companion ‘Abdul-Ilaah ar-Raabih from the United Kingdom, originally from Morocco. As for you, brother Hasan, I didn?t hear anything from you about this matter.”|
So Abu Hasan continues commenting with this
|So, here for the noble reader is the testimony of the Shaykh himself verifying that this indeed was untrue. And if Shadeed did not accept the report from Hasan as-Somali, why didn?t he merely contact Shaykh ‘Ubayd to ask him?In addition to this untruth, as well as others to be clarified, on page 7, he states,|
he doesn’t state whether the following is from Ubayd himself, or someone else, but it seems through his speech that his speech is alluding to Shaykh Ubayd
|“Neglecting this principle only perpetuates the fitnah that is between the brothers. The conversation I had with the brother Yusuf was confidential, at least I thought at the time. He went back to Abu Khadeejah as well as Hassan Somali in the UK and Abul Hassan Malik in the USA (may Allah preserve them) and discussed with them the conversation I had with him.”|
SO then Abu Hasan Maalik Says
|Again, Shadeed’s unnamed sources have given him misinformation. As he mentioned me in a list of brothers that Yusuf in Tobago supposedly contacted. I called Yusuf in Tobago yesterday on the 30th of July, 2010 and asked him to clarify this untruth in an e-mail. Here are the words taken from the correspondence:|
and so he quotes his correspondence saying
|“With the Name of Allaah The Owner of All Mercy and The Bestower of Mercy. Verily All Praise belongs to Allaah and May The Eternal Peace and Blessing of Allaah be upon His Messenger Muhammad and His Family and Companions and All those who follow him precisely until the day of judgement To proceed, Allaah Ash-Shaheed as my witness, I Yusuf Diab of Muwahhideen Publications, Tobago, Trinidad & Tobago would like to clarify that I never contacted Abul Hasan Malik concerning Shadeed Muhammad?s statements about Salafi Publications, going to the movies or any other matter concerning Shadeed, as he (Shadeed) falsely claims in his article ?The Paradigm Shift of the Salafi Da?wah in the West? Abu Zaynab Yusuf ibn Abdul-Lateef Ibn Yusuf Ibn Sulaymaan Ibn Abbaas DiabMuwahhideen Publications, TobagoTrinidad & Tobago31/07/201019/08/1431”|
and then he ends his escapade with this
|I leave the reader with a narration of ‘Umar Ibnul-Khattaab related in the introduction of the Saheeh of Imam Muslim, “He will never be an Imaam from amongst us who narrates everything that he hears.” May Allaah rectify our affairs. Indeed He is The All-Hearing, The All-Aware.|
Unmasking the Typical Salafitalk Deception
What has happened in the above rhetoric is to isolate themselves from fasaad to quarantine the whole issue with Shadeed’s apparent acceptance of information. That is a clever trick to circumvent a more crucial reality, that reality being that some hizbis, went to Ubayd himself apparently relayed the same information that Shadeed Muhammad originally stated. In other words, Shadeed’s mistake was with regard to who were the individuals involved in relaying the information, but he was not mistaken on the “content” of what was conveyed.
Irrespective of Shadeed “got his men wrong”, the fact still remains that some juhaal who claim to be “clear” saw something from Shadeed Muhammad “that they did not like” and remembering how Shadeed Muhammad blasted the extremism of their hizbiyyah a fews years back on the madeenah.com website, figured that this was their chance to get back at him. So these “clear” people went to Ubayd, who supports their bid’a concept of “clear” (a bida concept utterly refuted by Khalid ar-Raddadee and which was even posted in their hizbi forum), at least he remains silent about their corrupt manhaj which only signifies his agreement with it based on the “position” he has as an “alim” as they claim.
More importantly, one of the essential aspects of this attack on Shadeed is regarding his lack of scrupulousness in verifying the ins and outs of his riwayah and he should have checked the solidarity of this information.
Well, we have a problem here. Abu Hasan Maalik demands this from Shadeed, but remains silent about the same lack of scrupulousness from Ubayd himself
here is the words of Ubayd once again
|Answer: In the name of Allaah and all praise is due to Allaah; and may Allaah send peace and salutations upon the Messenger, his Family and his Companions. Verily, this person called Shadeed Muhammad from America is an individual that is lost and the Muslim males and females are not advised to listen to his lectures. It has been established by the reports of trustworthy individuals that he visited Trinidad and after the lecture or classes he went to the movies. One of the people who informed us of this was our brother and companion ‘Abdul-Ilaah ar-Raabih from the United Kingdom, originally from Morocco. As for you, brother Hasan, I didn?t hear anything from you about this matter.”|
Ubayd does not mention nobody but merely makes tawthiq of those who gave him this riwaya. On what grounds has he established their trustworthiness? One of those narrators he mentions is Abdul-Ilaah. If this is the Abdulilah al-Lahmami, then likewise this is also a despicable individual whose statements on peoples Islam we abandon.
Moreover, Shaykh Muhammad bin Hadee told these dudes that they don’t even measure up to the du’afa narrators in the hadeeth literature.
The Grounds for Abandonment Remain
As I said before, irrespective of Shadeed’s lack of scrupulousness regarding verifying his riwaya or the manner in how he relayed it, what IS the issue of importance and essence, and what represents the edifice of hizbiyyah that salafitalk muqalids are known with adhering to, is that Now, Shadeed Muhammad is disparaged as is highlighted in the report of Ubayd, whom they blindly follow over the kibaar ulema, over what, over taking his wife to the movies. How strange. These “da’is” and even extremists muqalids who follow them pay extra attention with regards to the Muslim manhaj (behavior) of excusing your brother over some sin he does, but this rule is only applied to those who agree with their hizbiyyah. Those who do not concede to their hizbiyyah, like Abu Usaamah for example, then all hell broke loose regarding revealing all of his sins to the shiyookh at that time (whom now they also abandoned for typical hizbi reasons). The same with Abu Muslima, and now with Shadeed.
Shadeed is “Ikhwaani” now
In the same question and answer session, the second question posed to Ubayd on Shadeed Muhammad was
|Second question: Likewise Shaykh, he has advertised a lesson on that will take place Saturday (7/31/10) called the “Paradigm shift of the Salafi dawah in the West”, do you advise the brothers and sisters to listen to this lesson, may Allah bless you?Answer: It appears that the title which you have mentioned is set to establish a philosophical, theoretical ideology, and it is not set to establish the Salafi dawah. The Salafi call is the religion of truth which has come from Allah, and conveyed by the prophets and messengers, may the peace and blessings be upon them. There is no [man that is a] founder for this call. Indeed the followers of the messengers are the callers to this way, and I am referring to those who call with insight. And they inherited the legislation from the prophets, may the peace and blessing be upon them. I have previously presented to you that this man is a lost individual and disreputable. So in reality he is not suitable to be a caller to Allah. It is not permissible that he be listened to, not his lessons or his lectures until he starts over again, gains an understanding of the religion of Allah and takes the legislative knowledge from the people who are firmly grounded in it. Also he should seek knowledge from the Salafis who are the people upon truth in their creed and methodology and then they testify that he is proficient in the fundamentals of the religion, and they testify that he is precise in taking from the scholars who are known for their wisdom and implementation. So as long as he is in this state, he is not befitting to be a caller. And I fear that he is an Ikhwaani that has been planted amongst the ranks of the Salafis.|
the statement in bold is what will stick to the minds of the muqalids and now the kalaam will be “Shadeed Muhammad is ikhwaani” all at the behest of this shaykh’s “fear”.
We are sorry, but it is NOT upon the asl of the people of the sunnah, the salafiyoon, the ahlul-hadeeth that a jarh of a person’s integrity of Islam is based on your “fear”. Moreover, the basis of this “fear” of the Shaykh is based on the unscrupulous and poor conveyance of the translators Hassan as-Somali and Anwaar Wright to the Shaykh which was clarified by Shadeed Muhammad in a new article he came out with clarifying this event by the title “Blowing the Whistle on the Hidden Hizbiyah Affecting Muslim Communities in America: The Decision to Halt Da’wah Activities and Why “.
Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd advised Ubayd and his muqalids to refer to the senior ulema of the courts for determining the proper status of a person’s Islam and you and your cohorts have failed to acknowledge this mandation of Alaamah Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd.
Furthermore, the apex of Shadeed Muhammad’s lecture is NOT to imply an alternative theoretical, philosophical, or ideological aspect of what the dawah is, but to expose the cult hizbiyyah that your muqalids have plagiarized for the dawah in which you have aided and abetted these miscreants. Now I believe it is time that I get back with some of the students to take your affair back to Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd or Salih al-Fawzaan in order to expose the reality of this affair of yours.
The apex of Shadeed’s lecture has nothing to do with what appears to you, it was to expose the fraudulent nature of those “clear” salafis in how they hizbitized the dawah here in the west and to re-establish the salafi dawah as it is everywhere on the face of the earth which doesn’t suffer this hizbiyyah, except for Britain.
More over, the ulema do testify to Shadeed’s ability and proficiency in usoolu-deen and in that which he attained scholarship for. Ubayd is the only one, among the rest, who opine otherwise, for obvious reasons known to salafis, who are more inclined to be weary of your dawah and your fatwa than that of Shadeed Muhammad.
This is what happens when juhaal like salafitalk and their muqalids totally entrust their deen on those whose ilm is not established other than the rabbani ulema like Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem ibn Abdullah, Shaykh Abdullah bin Ali bin Ahmad Mutee Hammadee, Abdur-Rahman al-Ajlaan, Adam Ethiopee, Mukhtar Shanqeeti, Ibraheem Ibn Abdul-Azeez al-Khudayree, Abdullah bin Hasan al-Qu’ood, Muhammad as-Subayyal, Sulaiman bin Qaasim al-Faifi, Ghunaim ibn Mubarak al-Ghunaim, Jibreel bin Yahya al-Hakamee, Sulaiman bin Ali bin Sulayman ad-Dikhayyil, Muhammad bin Hamaad bin Rashid bin Naseef, Ali Naasir al-Faaqihi, Hamood at-Tuwayjiree, and a boat load of others whose mention would exhaust this post.
The Nature of Shadeed Muhammad’s Destruction
It was asked
All this about whether someone went to the cinema to watch a movie…. (did anyone ask what kind of movie he saw?)
Apparently, based on the “paradigm” article by Shadeed, the issue of him going to the movies was the cut throat action to annihilate him. The real contention they have is that he does not concede to their hizbiyyah, ghuloo (excessiveness) and he was a proponent against these matters when he was with Madeenah.com. These belligerent hizbis took this to heart because warning against being a hizbi and extreme is a warning against themselves. So one of these belligerent juhaal from Philly happened to listen to a lecture of his and saw what he ignorantly viewed as a “mistake”. The mistake was this
|“The Prophet (Sallahu alaihi wa salam) understood that his community was made up of a variety of people coming from different backgrounds. Some of them were slaves and some of them were slave owners who were not totally just with their slaves. Some of them were idolaters, some of them were Christians and some of them were Jews. They came from all different walks of life. So he assessed their religious problems as well as their social issues , their social problems and social ills and when you do this it allows you to gauge the challenges you are inevitably going to encounter as the Imam while trying to rectify their situation. You can’t be the Imam of a community and to think that everybody is on the same level (just) because we are in the same community or because we all attend the same Masjid that everybody is on the same level and this is not the case.
Even their background and ethnicity, you have people that come from different cultures. Some people were raised in the south and some were raised in the north and that brings a whole different dynamic to the community. So as the Imam and leader of the community you have to be able to look at your community (and) assess what their social ills are. You have some communities where, I have been in the particular community, they are faced with racism whether they are Arab and non- Arab or light skin and dark skin. There are levels of racism that exist in certain Islamic communities in the West and as an Imam, a good leader, it’s not for you to overlook that and focus on teaching kitab ut Tawheed or usool ath thalathah or focus on teaching this and that without addressing the issues…” Then I mentioned the hadeeth of A’isha (Radiyallahu anha) found in Saheeh al Bukhari to support this point.
So, the part in bold, according to the “clear” people is an absolute no no. In their world view, these books are “wahi” which is why these ignorants begin to memorize them before they memorize the Qur’an. At any rate, the ludicrous nature of this hizbi was exposed when Shadeed says that
|To make matters worse, Abdul Mateen began sending text messages to the brothers and sisters stating that “Shadeed Muhammad warns against Kitab ut Tawheed and Usool ul Thalatha!”|
In other words, this ignorant hizbi, by default of being who he is (a hizbi) like all other hizbis before him, interpret reality in an altered fashion where they take things out of content and context and then bring forth this altered dimension to other students or shaykhs and relay this altered reality. This is what happened to the chiefs of this hizbiyya like Abu Hasan Maalik and his cohorts who blasted Abu Usamah out of their dawah, they did the same with Abu Muslimah. Likewise another jaahil by the name of Muhsin who lived in Alabama, his fitnah tentacles reached all the way to Chicago who phoned a shaykh about an Imaam in Chicago about his “unclear manhaj” and then only to repent from his error by saying that he was hasty and relayed incorrect information to the shaykh.
Im only babbling about this nonsense only to prove a factual point, that being that these buffoons always mistake the reality for something they have a perceived idea about. Their minds are innately trained and organically endowed to already have a cautious view of everyone, including salafis. This hizbi like mentality causes them to have a hyper-keen sense over a mistake that may be made, and once it is made, they make a mountain out of it.
What is even more ironic of this sad reality and which really exposes the nature of their utter hizbiyyah, is that this hyper keen sense is not activated until the individual in question, questions their methodology and manner, as those who were thrown out of the manhaj have done. This is why they are after Abu Taubah now. Had Shadeed Muhammad and Abu Taubah remained a loyalist hizbi like themselves, then none of this would have even taken place, and Shadeed could have said “we don’t need usoolu-thalatha or kitabu-tawheed” which is even a greater statement and more clear than what he originally said (which dwarfs in comparison) and it would have went in one ear and out the other for these people. But because Shadeed exposed the extremism of their cult taqleedism for what it is utilizing the speech of the scholars, their “mental hyper-keen sensory perception to bida” was activated and anything they felt was an offense to what they viewed as “manhaj” will be used against you.
These are the actions of hizbi politics in the western world.
I respect the shaykh Ubayd for whatever he contributes of benefit, however Im not a hizbi like them, but this recent fiasco of his is clearly in defiance of what Abdul-Muhsin originally refuted him for, which would have been grounds to label him an innovator according to the false usool of SPUBS and salafitalk, but because of their direct hizbi connection with the shaykh, that principle of theirs goes down the drain, apparently making themselves the chief inheritors of double standards.
The Hizbiyyah that Permeates the world of “Salafitalk”
In Shadeed’s New article, he comments on a statement made by Haafidh Ibn Abdul-Bar rahimahullah who said
Ibn Abdul Barr (Rahimahullah) said:
Taqleed (i.e. blind following) is to take the opinion of a scholar without knowing the reason for which he said it or its meaning, and you refuse to take anotheropinion. Or his mistake becomes apparent to you but you still follow it due to fear of opposing him even though you know his statement is incorrect. And this is prohibited (i.e. Haram) in Allah’s religion5.
And so he comments saying
Hence is not befitting for us to raise the speech of the scholars to the level of revelation, to the extent of saying to someone: “Are you going against the advice of the scholars?!” or “Are you going against the shaykh?!” Especially since the scholars differ on many issues regarding the religion as well as their positions on individuals. These are the types of comments and statements we hear all too frequently today, used as means of controlling people or to intimidating them from going against what has become the status-quo, the likes of statements such as; “You are disobeying the scholars!” as if to say that the individual is a sinner worthy of punishment from Allah if he disagrees with something a scholar has said!!!
Shaykh Ubayd Unknown to Alaamah Saalih al-Haydaan
In the article in which Shadeed Muhammad newly released, in a long question relayed to the Shaykh in clarifying the oppression that occurred against him from the administration from Masjid ar-Rahman, so I will post Shadeed’s conversation with Shaykh Saalih al-Haydaan
Consequently, I went to see His Eminence, Shaykh Salih Ibn Muhammad Al Luhaydan (may Allah preserve him) at his Masjid in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and my question to him was as follows:
“Shaykh, may Allah grant you long life! My name is Shadeed Muhammad, I am an American graduate of the Islamic University in Madinah (Saudi Arabia). I converted to Islam a little over 13 years ago. I have written a few books and translated some into my language. I am also involved in the da‟wah in America, which people have benefited from and all praise is for Allah.
Then the sheikh began to ask me more personal questions about myself. I said to him: “Shaykh I need some of your time to address an ongoing issue in many of the communities in the West.”
I mentioned to the shaykh that on one of my travels outside of the US, I went to the movies, the Shaykh replied: “Okay, so what‟s the problem?” I said that a few brothers took this information back to Shaykh Ubayd Al Jabiree and he said that I should not be giving da‟wah and it was plastered all over the internet. So Shaykh Salih Al Luhaydan said: “Who?” I said: “Shaykh Ubayd Al Jabiree”. The Shaykh said: “Who is he?” I said: “He is one of the scholars of Madinah who used to teach at the University of Madinah’s high school.
Other false information was bought to him and he even went as far to say that he fears that I am an Ikhwaanee planted in the ranks of the salafees! The Shaykh replied: “Subhanallah! Brother Shadeed, this is the first I am hearing of this situation, and I don‟t know you personally so therefore I cannot judge you or your situation, but what I will say is that, if the situation is as you say it is, then you should refute what he said about you and move on!” I said: “Shaykh how can I refute him? He is one of our scholars and my word means nothing in comparison to his word in the eyes of the people!” The shaykh said: “Did he hear from you before he made these statements?” I said: “No. Absolutely not!” He said: “Then you have every right to defend yourself! Refute what he said about you in your language and send it out over the internet just as what he said about you was sent out all over the internet! How can he make a statement about you such as this, without even hearing from you?! He does not have the right to rule against you in such a manner. Refute what he said and move forward in giving da‟wah.”
This conversation took place on Thursday night the 8th of Shawwal 1431H corresponding to September 16th 2010 at the shaykh‟s Masjid in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Several realities emerge from the baseerah of the Shaykhs answer to Shadeed Muhammad and this is an answer of a true scholar of the Sunnah, which is the essence of the reason why we are commanded to seek the most senior ulema of the ummah. However, of these several realities, I wish to point out three major and pivotal realities.
1. Flat out wantonness of the particular issue in which those whose hearts were diseased laid contention against Shadeed i.e. that of him going out to the movies.
2. Ubayd’s being majhool (unknown) to the kibaarul-ulema. Statements like this have also been stated by others. Alamaah Salih al-Haydan virtually says “who is he”. Now, this is not a disparagement of Ubayd, rather it is a vilification of the hizbiyyah of people involved with salafitalk and their muqalids who pump this particular individual to be the Alaamah of the people of Sunnah, of which the ulema have no idea who he is.
3. Lastly, the words of the shaykh clearly reveal the lack of juristic acumen that Ubayd has, which only makes sense as to why he is unknown to the kibarul-ulema and not on the level if issuing verdicts as they are. Thus the Shaykh reveals that Ubayd had no right to answer the question in the manner he answered it. More importantly, because of this injustice, Shaykh Saalih grants Shadeed his Islamic right to defend himself against this unjustice from Ubayd, which according to the benefit of the doubt was due to the faulty information presented to him by those infected with the hizbi like mentality that perpetrates the world of salafitalk.
May Allah strengthen the Muslims and strengthen the people of the sunnah and that He guides us back to His pleasure and the issues that really matter
 It is a forum infected with hizbiyyah