-

[1. Introduction]

Assalamu alikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

A few days ago, a youth in Birmingham UK forwarded me a post written by another youth in Birmingham, Waheed Alam (also known as 'Abu Khadeejah'), which he entitled "Suroorees Return". What struck me about his post, were two unusual factors, (a) The literary style of his post, which has a banality which is a far cry from his usual polemical tirades which have become a trademark of his writings, and (b) His claim to be replying to a post Ali Al-Timimi wrote on Aljazirah over a month ago (Dec. 20, 1998) and (c) His insistence on seeing Ali himself reply.

Had Abu Khadeejah been replying via say, regular (snail) mail or even fax, a delay of a month could perhaps be considered justifiable. Yet in the world of cyberspace, response time to e-mail is usually judged in hours, let alone over a month. This raises a number of questions, specifically whether Abu Khadeejah actually wrote the post, given the fact that Abu Khadeejah and his "Salafi Publications" partner Amjad Rafiq, have in the past, demonstrated themselves to be muqallidoon, who when faced by questions they are incapable of answering, will then pass the questions to their ideologues in via fax, and then post the replies. Insha' Allah, more about this later. In the meantime, this will be a line-by-line discussion of what this ignorant child has written. Hence, my apologies for its length.

[2. Labelling people as “Sururis”]

> >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:41:45 -0500 > >From: Waheed Alam > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Suroorees Return > >

The titling seems to indicate that Abu Khadeejah is inferring that Ali is a "Suroori", while Allah says, "walaa tanaabazoo bi l-alqaab." ("... nor insult one another by nicknames.") [49:11] Moreover, for years it is well known that Ali is critical of aspects of Muhammad Suroor's teachings (as he is of other groups and personalities). If asked regarding that, Ali will unhesitatingly explain as to why. The difference here however, is that this ignorant person and his ilk simply enjoy defaming anyone who disagrees with them by calling them names like 'Suroori', 'Qutubi', etc. Indeed their dawah is based solely on defamation and insulting others.

[3. The intent of Sheikh Ali at-Tamimi’s original email]

> >Asslaamu alaykum > > > >The following is a reply to brother Ali Timeemee's recent outburst on the > >net - yet again trying to confuse sincere young Salafi brothers and sisters > >who trying to gain beneficial knowledge about their Lord, their Deen, their > >Messenger and the way of the Salaf.

This demonstrates Abu Khadeejah's deception. Br. Ali's e-mail on Dec. 20 was on the topic of Sh. Ibn Baaz and Sh. Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. The e-mail pointed out Sh. Ibn Baaz's tazkiyah of Sh. Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq's book entitled "as-Siraat." Sh. Ibn Baaz encouraged the printing and the distribution of the book. Thus will Abu Khadeejah follow Sh. Ibn Baaz's advice? Will he place its translation on his "Salafi Publications" web site? Or will he publicly admit what he privately told Ali in the spring of 96, that they [the brothers in the UK] were taught that "Sh. Ibn Baaz was weak in manhaj" and that Sh. Ibn Uthaimeen was "a plaything in the hands of the Surooris"? Instead of hiding behind the cloaks of these and other scholars will these youth not truly explain their manhaj regarding these matters (like the one regarding Sh. Ibn Baaz's praise of Sh. Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq's book) rather than teaching one thing in public while holding another view in private? Most likely Abu Khadeejah will skirt away from this issue as he has others.

[4. Who promotes conspiracy theories?]

>>I ask brother Ali to fear Allaah and > >stop trying to agitate the people against their scholars with false > >paranoid ideas and conspiracy theories.... > >

What a joke! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! These ignorant individuals rely on the nonsensical book entitled "Qutubeeyah, Hiyal Fitnah" from which they have placed excerpts on their web page. This book mentions on page 137 (2nd edition) that the Qutubees supposedly have a "secret form" which they use to follow up on the activities of future leaders of the group. However, the author of this book admits that this form (which the author places a photocopy on pages 138-139) is publicly sold in book stores.

He then concludes that this form is therefore, "'alaneeya sirreeya," or "public-secret." Thus where is the paranoia in so-called "secret forms" that are sold publicly or in what Ali wrote in his e-mail? Also regarding conspiracy theories will the ignorant kid and his teachers tell us about their 50 page paper that they sent to the Saudi Ministry of Interior entitled "At-Tantheem as-Sirri al-Aalami bain al-Taakhteet wa t-Tatbeeq fil-Mamlaka al-Arabeeya as-Saudeeya: Haqaa'iq wa Wathaa'iq" (The Secret World Order between Planning and Implementation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Realities and Documents)? So now who are the REAL followers of "conspiracy theories"?

[5. Use, misuse and abuse of the term “Salafi”]

> >Aboo Khadeejah as-Salafi (Birmingham) > >

This is one of the characteristics of this group, where they love to fashion themselves with names like "as-Salafi" or "al-Athari." Yet has Sh. Ibn Baz, or Sh. Ibn Uthaimeen, or Sh. al-Albani ever appended the title "as-Salafi" or "al-Athari" to their names? Then why do these kids feel such a need to do so? Salafiyah is more than latching on to a label; it is a manhaj which extends to beliefs, worship, morals and behavior, in both the public and the private realm of individuals and societies. These youth however, have been deceived by Satan, since they continually refer to themselves as Salafis, Ahlul-Hadeeth, al-Firqa an-Najiya, at-Ta'ifa al-Mansura - they then begin to believe that they are just that, and do not realize the long distance they need to traverse in order to truly achieve that for which they strive.

In fact, it is directly due to their emblazoning themselves with the title "Salafi" while at the same time exhibiting despicable conduct, that large numbers of average Muslims have now associated Salafiyah with the actions of these youth, and Sufis have capitalized on this to then promote themselves as "the true bearers of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah."

[6. Their failure to recognise some of the senior scholars of our time, due to partisanship]

>>Ali then said:

>>Another manifestation of the new world order in which we find ourselves and to which I and other brothers have commented on this forum for the past few years is the re-interpretation of concepts of the Islamic religion in order to support the new world order in the name of the Sunna and Salafiya. >The scholars we refer to are Shaykh al-Albaanee, Shaykh Ibn> >Baaz, Shaykh ibn Al-Uthaymeen, Shaykh Saaleh Fawzaan, Shaykh Rabee ibn > >Haadee, Shaykh Muqbil ibn Waadiee, Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree and their likes

> >- These are not from the new world order but from the way of the 'old' > >(qadeemi) order known as the salafus-Saalih.

As one can see, this is a nonsensical statement. One wonders as to why do these brothers jump from "Shaykh al-Albaanee, Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Shaykh ibn Al-Uthaymeen, Shaykh Saaleh Fawzaan" to "Shaykh Rabee ibn Haadee, Shaykh Muqbil ibn Waadiee, Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree." Why is it that they skip over other major scholars in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who are part of Hay'a Kibar al-'Ulima like Sh. Bakr Abu Zaid, Sh. Ibn Jibreen, and Sh. al-Qu'ood? Is it because these latter scholars hold views which are in opposition of this group and hence this group privately holds them to be astray? Moreover, what is the ignorant one's position and explanation regarding Muqbil's position toward the Saudi government where Muqbil prays to Allah for its downfall and praises Juhayman who took over the Haram in the first weeks of 1400?

[7. Sheikh al-Albaani’s praise and criticism]

>>As for Shaykh Muqbil and >>Shaykh Rabee, then Shakkh Al-Albaanee has mentioned that the ones who > >criticises them is a person following his desires (hawa)

This shows the ignorance of this person. Are Muqbil and Rabee prophets and hence infallible from error? And does this mean that Bakr Abu Zaid and Ibn Jibrin are people following desires? If so, then this would mean that Al-Albani himself is also following his desires as he criticizes what Rabi has written about Sayyid Qutub when Adnaa Aroor read him a section of that book.

Al-Albaani then goes on to praise Sayyid Qutub's tafseer and suggests that all Salafis should read a chapter from Milestones. Will the ignorant one follow Sh. al-Albaani's advice and place that chapter on his website or is this just another example of them claiming to follow the shuyookh but in reality only taking what follows their own perverted desires?

[8. Sheikh al-Albaani’s praise of al-Madkhali]

He then writes:

>>Saykh > >Al-Albaanee also described Shaykh Rabee as the imaam of jarh and tadeel > >(the imaam of knowing the narrators and the one who disparages and praises > >them , Albaanee in fact has written the introduction to his new edition of> >manhaj al-anbiyah (now available in english).

So what? What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Rabi asked Sh. Abdur-Rahmaan to write the introduction to the first edition of the book which appeared in the mid-80's.

Also just because al-Albaani views "Shaykh Rabee as the imaam of jarh and tadeel" this does not mean he is infallible. The true imaams of al-jarh wat-ta'deel like Imaams Ahmad, Ibn Ma'een, an-Nisaa'i, Ibn Hibban and others mutually corrected and refuted each others comments on certain narrators of the Prophet's hadeeth (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). Where they then followers of their desires? What sheer ignorance.

[9. Accusation of Safar and Salmaan supporting the New World Order]

He then writes:

>>As for the refutation of > >this accusation by Ali of some salafis supporting the new world order, then > >refer to Madaarak an-Nadhr fis-Siyaasah by Shaykh Abdul-Maalik > >ar-Ramadhaanee with introduction and praises by Shaykh Al-Albaanee and > >Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad. As for the true promoters of the new world > >order, then that is the likes of Syed Qutb, Muhammed Suroor, Salmaan > >al-Awdah, Safar Hawaalee

This is again an ignorant statement which needs no comment. To whom are the kuffaar concerned with? Ar-Ramadhaanee or Sayyid Qutub, Safar and Salman? It is obvious that the ignorant kid has no idea what is the New World Order. This is to be expected of the followers of a group who are taught that to be aware of current affairs is equivalent to reading from the Torah.

[10. From the lies upon Safar and Salmaan]

Abu Khadeejah then says:

>>these ones who promote setting up of parliaments > >and democratic elections, demonstrations in the streets, setting up of > >numerous hizbee groups and organisations that split the unity of the ummah, > >organising Marxist type revolutions and overthrows

Now he adds lies to his ignorance. Qul Hatoo Burhaankum in Kuntum Saadiqeen! Neither Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Suroor, Salman or Safar ever called for:

- Parliaments and democratic elections - Street demonstrations - Numerous hizbee groups and organizations that split the unity of the ummah - Organizing Marxist type revolutions and overthrows

Bring your proof, even though you can never find any proof.

[11. The position of the senior scholars regarding Safar and Salmaan]

He then writes:

> >see Madaarak an-Nadhr > >for Shaykh Albaanee's and Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad's views on Safar > >and Salmaan. Also Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen have given > >clear praise for Shaykh Rabee and his works and his manaj.

And at the same time al-Albani, Ibn Baz, and Ibn Uthaymeen have praised Safar and Salman. Why not mention it? These major scholars and other major scholars differed when the fitna occurred between the Saudi government and Safar and Salman. Some like al-Fawzan are extremely critical. Others like Ibn Uthaymeen and al-Albani are mildly critical albeit for different reasons. (Ibn Uthaymin due to his views regarding the Saudi government and al-Albani due to his views on their approach.) Others like Ibn Baz are in a more of a middle position. Others like Bakr Abu Zaid are publicly silent, yet privately supportive. And still others like Ibn Jibreen and Ibn Quood are openly supportive. These scholars however, are ALL in agreement that Safar and Salman are Salafis and callers to the truth and sought only good for the ummah. The scholars differ regarding the outcome of events and whether the Saudi government (with the exception of al-Albani) was justified in their clampdown of them. So be just and truthful and don't twist facts to support the Saudi throne. Which is an extremely strange position coming from a non-Arab, Asian kid who lives in the UK.

[12. Position of Sheikh Ibn Baaz regarding Safar and Salmaan’s imprisonment]

>>And it was Ibn > >Baaz who gave the fatwa for the detention of Safar and Salmaan to prevent > >their marxist style fitnah spreading !! (see www.salafipublications.com for > >more information).

This is a double-barreled lie. Just another among your many. Where does this fatwa of Ibn Baz exist? And where does it refer to your lie of "their marxist style fitnah spreading"? The sum of the incident is that the Saudi government requested that the Hay'a Kibar al-Ulama' investigate into the affair of Safar and Salman. Hay'a KIbar alUlama' listened to some tapes and read certain selections of some of the writings of Safar. They then decided not to take a position but refer the matter back to the Saudi government. The Saudi government then brought in Safar and Salman and asked them to sign a document in which demanded of them not to say:

* The Islamic world is the target of a new Crusade * It is incumbent to wage jihad against the Jews * Politics is part of religion * America's problems are a result of her being away from Allah * Declaration that to participate in usury based banks is forbidden in the sharia * Muslims must pay Zakat and should give charity * Muslims must alleviate the suffering of other Muslims

Safar and Salman refused and were thus fired from their teaching positions and were banned from all activities or contact with anyone. Thereafter they were arrested and have remained in prison now for almost six years (Editor's Note: Obviously, they have since been released).

The amazing thing is that the members of the Royal family themselves see that what has befallen them since the crackdown upon the mashaykh is a form of Divine punishment. It has been reported by more than one source that King Fahd's son, Abdul-Aziz, believes that what has befallen his father from stroke and mental infirmity, is a direct result of the du'a of the Muslims against him in the wake of his imprisoning Safar and Salman. Also, when Safar was imprisoned, Ibn Baz visited him and asked him if he needed anything. Safar replied he would not request anything but that his mother be brought to him. When Safar's mother came, she scolded Ibn Baz and told him to fear Allah. Upon which Ibn Baz broke down in tears.

Moreover, even if one were to argue that Ibn Baz was the cause of their imprisonment, then one must also take into account Ibn Baz's statements directly following their imprisonment, that they were from Ahl-Sunnah and that imprisonment is not an indication of deviation, but rather the government thought it in its interest to imprison them and that others like Prophet Yusuf, Imam Ahmad and Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiya were likewise imprisoned. Please respond to that, O Abu Khadeejah.

> >>Ali then said:> >> While originally a phenomenon that for the most part was a local issue > > in response to the activities of certain scholars in Saudi Arabia, it, > > thereafter, grew to a world wide destructive movement which its > > cancerous teachings were seen from the west coast of the United States > > to the islands of Indonesia. >

The proof of that is the existence of ignorant people like the self-styled Salafi, Abu Khadeejah in the UK. Who then says:

> >My response: The activities of 'certain scholars..' - of course what Ali > >means here is the likes of Safar and Salmaan who were spreading the fitnah > >of revolution, democrasy, demonstrations etc., publicly criticising the > >rulers and other affairs - for which Ibn Baaz gave the fatwa of their > >detention -

These lies have been responded to above.

[13. Sheikh Ibn Baaz’s criticism of Muqbil’s book]

>>Shaykh Saleh Fawzaan criticised them, as did Al-Albaanee > >(Jordan), Muqbil (Yemen), Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad (Madeenah) and Rabee > >(Madeenah) - And they were criticised for their misinterpretation of the > >principles of the Salafi dawah - Shaykh Al-Albaanee described them as > >Ikhwaanees, Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin as ignorant youth (shabaab) - See Madaarak > >an-Nadhr fis-Siyaasah. The destructive movement is the movement that > >opposes the way of the Salafus-Saaleh not the one that agrees with them.?

[14. Sheikh Ibn Baaz and Ibn Uthaimeen – Voting in elections]

Abu Khadeejah then says:

>>So > >destruction is upon the ones that call for open demonstrations in the > >Muslim lands and other lands (which the Prophet and the Sahaabah never > >did), and call for taking part in open democratic elections (which the > >Prophet and the Sahaabah never did), and call for marxist style revolutions > >against the Muslim rulers (which the Sahaabah never did), and call for > >setting up of groups (jama'aat) and societies (jami'yaat) and movements > >(harakaat) each one of them claiming that it is upon the truth and is > >calling for unity whilst in reality they are causing more discord and more > >disunity as bad as (and if not worse) than the sectarianism of the madhhabs > >and soofee tareeqahs (which the Prophet and the Sahaabah never did), > >splitting tawheed into a fourth distinct category (which the Salaf or the > >middle-era never did)

What ignorance he shows here, as he is inadvertently making du'a of destruction against Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen, both of whom have permitted Muslims to vote were there is a greater benefit. Indeed, Ibn Uthaymeen sees voting in open democratic elections as being obligatory at times!

[15. Accusation against Ali at-Tamimi of seeking to renew Islaamic Fiqh for the 20th century]

The ignorant one then says:

> >and calling for a new fiqh and madhhab in the west > >and elsewhere for the 20 th century (and as Maalik said: the latter part of > >this Ummah will not be corrected except that which corrected its earliest > >part) ..... and one could continue!!

If Abu Khadeejah is referring to Br. Ali's lecture on "minority fiqh," then this is an issue which the major scholars have discussed and which falls under the topic of what is called, "fiqh an-nawaazil." The existence of millions of Muslims (whether immigrants, their children, as well as converts) living in a permanent status in the West is something unheard of in all Islamic history and hence is not addressed in the classical books of fiqh. As Ali showed, there exist two extreme trends: (a) the modernists who try to change Islam to fit the West and (b) the opinion of Nuh Ha Mim Keller and others who argue that the writings of the traditional madhahib suffice. Br. Ali argues that many contemporary issues need an ijtihaad which balances the fiqh of the Salaf and the realities of Muslims living in the West. Thus where is the deviation from the way of the Salaf in this? Or is the way of the Salaf that one lives in the West (like the vast majority of these youth) on the "dole" handouts and "council homes" provided by the British government subjecting their wives and children to various forms of welfare and then not seeking work under a false pretext of "not wanting to engage in a job which entails some form of haraam"?

[16. Abandonment of Jihad in our time and its attribution to Salafiyyah]

Br. Ali then said:

Among the notions this group raised: * That there is no jihad without the existence of an imam (i.e., khalifa) over the Muslims and that to die in defense of Islam, the Muslims, and their lands was equivalent to suicide This is a lie and fabrication - Our position is same as the Prophet (s) and the Sahaabah - That is, that the Prophet (s) did not take the war to the kuffaar (ie offensively) until he was the Imaam or leader of the Muslims. So our position is the same as that which is that jihaad is behind a Muslim Ruler of a Muslim nation. As for if one wishes to go and defend and aid some Muslims in a different land where the disbelievers are taking their land and lives, then this is something fine if one has ability and will benefit the situation as the Allaah says: Help one another upon piety and righteousness... and the Prophet (s) said: The one who dies protecting his property is a martyr... This is the postion of Shaykh Albaanee and Shaykh Ali Hasan and Shaykh Saleem - So brother Ali has been beguiled and misunderstood this simple concept.

Again he twists the facts. Muhammad Shaqra clearly writes in his book, "Hiya as-Salafiya Nisbatan wa 'Aqidatan wa Manhajan" (It is Salafiya as an Appellation, Creed and Methodology):

"None may open the door for jihad nor raises its banner; nor permit it, nor called for it - except a single imam [over the Muslims], whether the people like that or not." (p. 200)

And he also writes:

"We ask as to why the umma cannot stand up to fulfill the issue of the obligation of jihad? This is because jihad ... is not to be [allowed] except with [the existence of] an imam and his [subsequent] permission. In this, it is similar to the hudud and punishments. These are not to be applied or established except by the general imam [ruling over all the Muslims]." (p. 194)

[Muhammad Shaqra] also gives a fatwa that the umma will not sin if it forsakes jihad these days, by saying:

"And hence, if it is not in the ability of the umma, to stand up in [fulfillment of] the duty of jihad due to the lack of a [single] amir (khalifa) [over the Muslims] who ties its banner, permits [its undertaking], and places a leader over the army; jihad [then] becomes among the impossible obligations [to fulfill]. And hence the umma does not sin by forsaking jihad." (p. 196)

Unfortunately, the author [Muhammad Shaqra] comes to the following conclusion regarding the ruling on jihad today:

"The best jihad today ... is to hold back from jihad." (p.204)

Shaqra also rules that the contemporary mujahid is open to Allah's anger and punishment and [if killed in battle] has then committed an act of suicide, whereas he says verbatim:

"He [who goes forth for jihad] is escaping to sin, going forth to [Divine] punishment, committing suicide with an arrow of Allah's wrath which he reaches for and thrusts into his breast." (pp. 199-200

In all of these ideas, Shaqra has gone against the ijma' of the ummah of Islam. Specifically, that jihad is a continual obligation till the Day of Resurrection. It does not require the permission of an imam over the Muslims. Indeed, jihad is obligatory upon everyone of us when the Muslims are attacked in their lands. Indeed, in such circumstances, jihad becomes obligatory for a woman to go forth even without the permission of her husband, the slave even without the permission of his master, the son even without the permission of his father.

Moreover, refer to the tape to which Abu Zubair mentioned, where Saleem al-Hilali also clearly denies contemporary jihad in the world today. Also refer to al-Farsi's statements in the UK, equating the Bosnian jihad with terrorism.

[17. Declaration of Muslim masses as innovators]

When Br. Ali said:

* That the Islamic movements (like the Ikhwan, Jama'at at-Tabligh, etc.) were more dangerous to Islam and the Muslims then the Jews and the Christians Yes and this is true, these Islamic Movements are sometimes more dangerous than the Jews and Christians. We should not be fooled by emotions. This does'nt mean that these Muslims are worse than jews and christians in that the tableeghis or ihkwaanees are kuffaar and in the eternal Hell - not they are not kuffaar - What this means is that these types of innovated movements and sects destroy Islaam from within like a cancer without even the ummah realising it until very late. Whereas the danger of the jews and christians is apparent and open as it was in the time of the Prophet (s) and we see how the Allaah and His Prophet (s) dealt with them. But the cancer within the ummah which spreads without being noticed is far worse. This is why we find the statement of Imaam Ibnul Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d 756H): The war against the innovators is greater than the war against the mushrikeen. And as Yahyaa ibn Maeen (companion of Imaam Ahmed ibn Hanbal) was asked: Is the one who defends the Sunnah better than the one who fights on the battle field getting injured and dusty? Ibn Maeen replied: Yes, by a great deal. And Ibn Wazeerah said: Fighting against the innovators is better than fighting against the Mushrikeen because fighting against the mushrikeen preserves the borders of Islaam, yet fighting against the innovators preserves the capital of the whole Islamic nation.... And Shaykhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah saw the threat from a group of innovators greater than the threat from the Jews and Christians...This does'nt mean however that the Salafis or the Imaams of the Salaf make takfeer of the deviant Muslim sects - It does, however mean that we are aware that if these sects are allowed to continue unchecked, then soon there would be no Islaam to fight the Christians and jews for, nor any light of Islaam to call them to !! (Please refer to Muslim Unity in light of the Numerous Sects and Parties by Shaykh Ali Hasan al-Halabee in English translation - Salafi Publications). So Jamaatut-Tableegh and Ikhwaan Muslimeen (and many others) are clearly deviated sects that must be warned against.

Abuz-Zubair clearly refuted this. The question is not warning about the deviations of the Ikhwan, the Tabligh, or the followers of Rabi. Rather the question is this group's Khawarij-like tendencies of making takfeer and tabdee of the Muslims as I demonstrated in the sound clip of Falah Ismail. Besides, Abu Khadeejah merely parrots Sh. Rabi Al-Madkhali who said during Shawwal 1416 during the 2nd Spring Camp in Kuwait:

* "The Ikhwan al-Muslimin are more harmful to Islam than the clear kuffaar as the Muslims are not deceived by the kuffaar; but they are deceived by these astray mubtadi'een. [The Muslims] are deceived by them and fall into bid'a and various errors (dalaalat) because of them."

* "The Ikhwan al-Muslimin and the Qutbis and those who orbit in their circles have invaded (i.e., perhaps he means infiltrated) [those] Salafi jama'aat which have destroyed the world ... The Ikhwan al-Muslimin don the garments of the truth but they are the furthest of people from it. They are the furthest away from the truth and Islam."

* When asked if the Ikhwan and Jamaat at-Tabligh are among the 72 sects destined for Hell, he replies "Yes."

* "Tabligh fight tawhid and the adherents of tawhid; the Ikhwan fight tawhid and the adherents of tawhid. They fight the Salafi minhaj and they fight its upholders; they are people of bid'a and dalaal."

* "Whoever defends these jama'aat and says in them there is good and that they have positive aspects, this individual sets people astray and calls to dalaalah."

* Regarding Sayyid Qutb, he says: "He did not leave a bid'a but adopted it nor a fundamental of Islam but destroyed it." (Al-Madkhali has written four books against Sayyid Qutb accusing him of kufr on more than ten counts. When Sh. Bakr Abu Zayd wrote a four page letter to al-Madkhali after reading the manuscript of the first book, advising him to drop the project, al-Madkhali came back with a book refuting Sh. Bakr and accusing him of being soft with the people of bida, etc.)

And finally (and this not all), observe his extremism. When asked regarding the permissibility of executing the members of Jama'at at-tabligh, al-Madkhali responds:

* "I possess the fatawaa and the deeds of the scholars to prove such. Didn't they execute Ja'd ibn Dirham. He was better than the Ikhwan, better than Sayyid Qutb a thousand times."

[18. Prohibition of being aware of the current events]

Ali then said:

* That to be aware of current events (fiqh al-waqi') was equivalent to studying the corrupted scriptures like the Torah

To which Abu Khadeejah says:

My response: This is lie and a corruption of the reality of what scholars like Albaanee, Ibn Baaz, Rabee, Muqbil etc say. Rather, the Muslim should be balanced, not being extreme in anything - a Muslim should know that Islaam is comprehensive and its call is based upon the Quraan and Sunnah from which eminate the principles and guidelines of calling. Studying the tawheed and correct aqeedah is its core hand in hand following the complete guidance and example of the Messenger (s) with the understanding of the Sahaabah, followed by making purification of our souls. All of this involves also knowing the state of the Ummah - Read 'The Methodology Of the Prophets in Calling to Allaah' by Shaykh Rabee ibn Haadee (now in English) read Fiqhul-Waaqi of Shaykh Albaanee and Shaykh Ali Hasan and read Muslim Unity by Shaykh Ali Hasan and you will clearly see the reality of the false accusation of brother Ali. If it not the Salafi scholars who are always talking about how to revive the ummah according to the guidance of the Sunnah and the sahaabah, then it is noone !!

We will show who is the true liar, insha' Allah. Muhammad Shaqra says regarding insight into the status quo of the umma, which some of the du'at today refer to as fiqhul-waqi', Shaykh Muhammad Shaqra says:

"Abandon fiqhul-waqi', so that you may understand the contemporary situation (waqi')." (p. 148)

Muhammad Shaqra also said some words which he apparently deems to be words of eloquence:

"Indeed the fiqh of fiqhul-waqi' is that you leave fiqhul-waqi' so that fiqhul-waqi' may be perfected in your mind and you will then become the most knowledgeable of people and possessing the most fiqh regarding fiqhul-waqi'." (p. 148)

By such a statement, Muhammad Shaqra negates a communal obligation which is incumbent upon the scholars of the ummah. Namely, that there must be among them those who will enlighten the rest regarding the situation of the umma, and how in light of the Book and the Sunna, to cure the ummah's problems and deviations.

Indeed [Muhammad Shaqra] reduces [fiqhul-waqi'] to:

"An intellectual pastime which has enamoured the hearts of some groups who have received a modern education."

Muhammad Shaqra also declares (on p. 135) that the concern shown by the scholars of the Muslims with respect to the status of their umma is forbidden and is equivalent to the Messenger of Allah forbidding 'Umar to read the Torah of the Jews.

Muhammad Shaqra apparently did not realize that the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - rebuked 'Umar because 'Umar saw in the Torah admonition and good. While the truth regarding the Torah, is that it has been changed by the Jew's lies. Furthermore, Allah has sufficed us with the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Moreover, the Torah even if it were uncorrupted is an abrogated sharia.

However, as for reading the Torah with the aim of refuting its followers or compelling them to act in accordance with the truth found within it, and which is in agreement with our sharia, this is within the Qur'an. The Messenger did such when the Jews of Medina denied the incumbency of stoning the adulterer.

Unfortunately, these individuals, like Muhammad Shaqra due to their lack of fiqh and their inability to distinguish the difference between a command and prohibition, and reading the Torah in order to seek guidance from it and reading the Torah for the purpose of refutation of the Jews or for the purpose of having them comply in accord with its unaltered teachings.

Likewise, is it true to say that among the principles of the contemporary Salafis is to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's?" Anyway, just what are these things which are Caesar's, but not Allah's? Whatever happened to "inna salaatiy wa nusukiy..."?

Moreover, Rabi Ibn Hadi writes that fiqh al-waqi' "divides the youth of the umma; and implants among its supporters spite [for their fellow Muslims] and corrupt character (like, falsely accusing the innocent, belying and abandoning the truth, abandoning the supporters of the truth, believing in lies and disinformation, spreading of such lies and disinformation in the form of raging waves which results in a flood of tribulations which has not left a single household or tent but penetrated it);" they then declared that fiqh al-waqi' is among the specific duties of rulers and therefore "it is impermissible to mobilize the scholars and students of knowledge for this task." Lest, they interfere in the responsibilities of the rulers, and hence, "enter into something which they are unable to perceive its consequences and magnitude, as this interference and contention results in such harm to themselves and their umma, regarding which only Allah knows its repercussions." When students of knowledge preoccupy themselves with fiqh al-waqi', they conclude this results in "giving a task to those who are unfit." (See his Hiwar with Salman al-Awda, pp. 94-102)

By "students of knowledge" they mean all who disagree with their political stances irrespective of how knowledgeable he may be. This is why it is well known that prior to the Gulf War, Rabi would publicly refer to Safar as "the Ibn Taymiya of our age" and then after the Gulf War began to refer to him as posing "a greater harm to the umma than the Jews and the Christians."

[19. The claim that to rule by secular laws is only a major sin and not Kufr]

Ali then said:

"Also among their deviant concepts was that the removal of the sharia and its replacement by secular law was only sin, albeit kufr duna kufr, and not apostasy and moreover to preach to the necessity of Allah's sharia being supreme and that all judgment be by His sharia and to His sharia was among the ways of the Khawarij and an innovation in the religion. My response: by Allaah, brother Ali should fear Allaah - All the Salafi scholars I have mentioned above call for the full implementation of the Islamic shareeah but they call for it upon the methodology of the Salaf not based upon entering into parliament or democrasy or demonstrations in the streets or by rebellious over throw. I sincerely ask my brothers and sisters to refer to the last two chapters of 'The Methodology Of the Prophets in Calling to Allaah' by Shaykh Rabee ibn Haadee (now in English) and you will see the truth of what I am saying."

Notice how Abu Khadeejah dances around Ali's point due to either his ignorance or his desires. Abu Zubair has clarified this issue in Ali's defense. And Ali clarified this two years ago when he showed the ignorance of Amjad Rafiq regarding this issue. And what are they now going to say when the fatwa of the Permanent Committee of the Council of Leading Scholars in the Kingdom which refers to those who call themselves Salafis in Jordan (specifically in reference to Murad Shukri and Ali al-Halabi) as passing off the madhhab of the Murjia as that of Ahl as-Sunna (Fatwa number 20212, dated 7/2/1419 AH). Or is this (in Abu Khadeejah's words) like Ibn Baz's praise of the Kuwaiti declaration, "another Suroori forgery"?

Ali then said:

To support this end, this group initially began to pick on a phrase first coined in this century by al-Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, i.e., hakimiya. They argued that the term from both alinguistical and religious perspective was a bid'a and hence it is forbidden to use the term. They also raised the issue regarding the permissibility of dividing tawhid into more categories than the traditional 3 categories found in the books of the scholars. My response: Yes, this is true - because the term Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah as a fourth category was not used by the Salaf and was innovated by the innovators like Syed Qutb - this term is not to be found in any of the books of the great Imaams or even lesser than them. And every good is in following the Salaf and every evil is in the innovation of the Khalaf (those of later times)! All the scholars mentioned above like Ibn Baaz, Ibn Uthaymeen, Albaanee etc., have clearly mentioned that separating this term into a fourth category is and innovation and that the one who does so is a deviant innovator !! See www.salafipublications.com for the statements of these shaykhs. However it does means that these scholars deny the obligation that judgement is only for Allaah as their fatwas clearly state.

(see previous response).

[20. Rabee is allowed to preach Salafiyah in the Baatini state of Qadhaafi - Libya]

Ali then said:

Their efforts was not as they portrayed to defend the aqida from innovation, but rather they sought to introduce into the aqida their false notions which in the end only seeks to acknowledge the secular status quo of the Middle East. And hence wqe witnessed amazing events and statements during the past few years. To the degree that their doctrinal leader was able to visit and preach the "Salafi" aqida and manhaj in the lands of the Batini, apostate state of North Africa. A nation which its kufr idealogy and war againts the din espoused by its desert (false) prophet can only bring back memories of the Fatimid state of al-Hakim who in the end pronounced himself to be Allah. My Response: I dont know what brother Ali is referring to here...

So why argue? Anyway, Ali is referring to Qadhdhafi's Libya. Is Qadhdhafi now Muslim? but however, this cannot be considered a proof of ones falsehood no more than assuming that Bill Clinton supports brother Ali and his dawah just because brother Ali lives in the heart of kufr empire in Washington DC...??!!

This is such a ridiculous statement. Ali is an American citizen and the United States is a secular country which hence maintains that it does not care if people are Muslims or whatever. Indeed, The United States supports aspects of Islam at times in order to further its various short and long term policy goals. Qadhdhafi on the other hand, is an apostate and tyrant who openly fights Islam and ridicules the Sunnah. When Qadhdhafi allows Rabi Ibn Hadi to publically preach Salafiyah in Libya, then something is up. In the same way, Saddam in the 80's would invite Sh. Ehsan Elahi Zaheer to make public statements on Iraqi radio against the Shiites. At that time of course, the Saudis would not tolerate criticism of Saddam or Baathism, only Khomeini and Shiism. My, my, how times change. So I ask you Abu Khadeejah, where is the the aqeedah and the manhaj of the Salaf in all this? Be truthful...if you can!

[21. Kibaar condemn Muraad Shukri and his supporter Ali al-Halabi, of Irjaa]

Ali then said:

The first to respond to these deviant ideas were a number of students of knowledge. When Ali al-Halabi printed Murad Shukri's book Ihkam at-Taqrir fi Ahkam at-Takfir, a Saudi student of knowledge Abu Abdur-Rahman as-Subai'i published a short essay entitled Bara'a Ahl as-Sunna. Then when al-Anbari printed his book al-Hukm bi ghayr Ma Anzala Allah, other students of knowledge wrote works refuting it. And when Ali al-Halabi printed his book Fitna at-Takfir wa l-Hakimiya again we found a professor of Islamic studies Dr. Abu Ruhayyim refuting it. My Response: As for Shaykh Alee Hasan printing the book of Muraad Shukree, then he has clearly and PUBLICLY stated that he was wrong to print the book of an amuteur like Muraad Shukree, and Shaykh Ali Hasan published this in numerous newspapers and magazines.

This again is a misrepresentation. Ali Al-Halabi was very specific with his words, he distanced himself from what he said "might" be misunderstood. He further placed the words "might" in parenthesis. So what does that mean? Also Ali al-Halabi's notes not his warning from "the fitna of Takfir and Hakimiyah" and his further defense against Dr. Ab Ruhayyim's refutation of Him, show that he holds the same views of Murad Shukri. So where is the difference in belief?

Abu Khadeejah then says:

As for the other two books, then they have clear references from the great scholars like Al-Albaanee and Saleh Fawzaan, Ibn Uthaymeen etc., so it is going to take more than two unknown names (regardless of how you promote them) to refute.

Do not misrepresent the facts. These references mean nothing, as they do not give tazkiya to the two aforementioned books. Anyway you call yourself a Salafi so where is your manahj here? It is not a matter of names, but rather the arguments and their evidences.

Also just to mention that thay have been refuted by a "professor" gives a false impression to the laymen, so fear Allaah. And just because someone has refuted another does'nt mean much in itself - because then we would have to say Imaam Ahmed ibn Hanbal was wrong in his aqeedah because he was refuted by Bishr Mireesee !!. Also that Imaam Barbahaaree (d 329H) is wrong because he was refuted by Hishaam (the innovator) Kibbaanee from downtown somewhere in Canada - and that Shaykh Al-Albaanee is wrong because he was refuted by Hasan (the innovator) as-Saqqaaf and Nah Haah (the innovator) Meem Keller. And what a calamity all this would be!!

This is again ignorance that does not require any comment. He then says:

[22. Who truly refutes the innovators, and who aids them?]

And who as matter of interest in so-called enlightened USA where Sunnah is supposed to be strong has answered in detail to the likes of Kibbaanee, Keller and Hamza Yusuf or are the so-called duaat like brother Ali more interested in the goings on in the palaces of the Kings ? (See www.salafipublications.com for replies to these deviants).

This is such a bombastic lie and a total distortion. It is well known that it was The Society for Adherenc to the Sunnah who in 1992 first printed and distributed quotes from Naqshbandi texts, exposing their worship of dogs and saints. These same quotes were later posted on the Internet as early as 1994, and have been a thorn in the side of the Sufis ever since. And it was the brothers in Australia who set up the first web site dedicated to exposing Kabbani's world wide web of deception and war on the deen. And it is these same groups who are today drawing constant fire from Kabbani and his minions. And since you have raised the issue of Kabbani and the others, it was us who first responded to the ideas of Hamza Yusef and Nuh Keller four years ago on your own "Salaf-net", when you were either incapable of responding to queries, or you were too busy calling Muslims "Khawarij" and "Surroori". Indeed, your pompous self praise has done little to stem the migration of British youth from your da'wah to the ranks of Keller, et al; to the extent that some now refuse to be identified with Salafiah.

Besides, what exactly is your position regarding the fatwa of the expelled Imam of Masjid Nabawi, Sh. Hudhayfi? Do you say the same about him that he was "interested in the goings on in the palaces of the Kings"? Do you regard him as a Khariji and a fattaan because he disagrees with your ideas by criticism of the Jews, his call for the expulsion of US forces in Saudi Arabia and his criticism of Saudi Arabia's benevolence toward the Shia of Iran? If so, then you and Kabbani share a distinct commonality, since it is Kabbani who in the latest issue of his magazine, openly praises the Jews and the Shia while attacking Sh. Hudhayfi as a "Wahhabi fanatic" and a fattaan. So please answer the question my brother, who is correct here, Hudhayfi or Kabbani?

[23. Do the scholars agree with everything that Rabee has to say?]

Ali then said:

However, this group insisted that their teachings were supported by the major scholars of the day and that their teachings was in the end the pure doctrine of Ahl as-Sunna. My response: Not only supported by the major scholars of today but also by the creed and methodology of the Salaf.

Then bring your proofs if you are truthful. There is no evidence that any of the major scholars support any of your views. Just the opposite. All you have are just general statements of praise of Rabi ibn Hadi by which you take and interpret that it means full support of all what they say. Yet in reality, those who have studied Sh. Rabi in detail like Bakr Abu Zaid and Ibn Jibreen have both refuted him. Besides, answer the following question, if Rabi was such a great scholar then why was he never placed on Hay'a Kibar al-Ulama'? Why was he virtually unknown, even in Saudi Arabia, until after the Gulf War when he began attacking the mashaykh? Why is it that today his books are not sold in any of the major book stores of Makkah and Medinah? Why is it that his own students, like ad-Dawish, have turned against him? He was manipulated by the state and has now been cast aside. And I guarantee you that it will be a simple matter of a time when his da'wa will be forgotten once and for all.

[24. The scholar’s criticism of Rabee’s attacks on Sayyid Qutub]

Ali then said:

Those of us who were familiar with this group and its origins and teachings knew otherwise. For we had seen that when they attacked Sayyid Qutb, may Allah be merciful with him., the major scholars pointed out the extremism of their view points. There was the letter of Bakr Abu Zaid and then the fatwa of Ibn Jibrin, two members of Saudi Arabia's Hay'a Kibar al-Ulima'. There was also al-Albani's statements and comments on tape which went to the degree of praise regarding Sayyid Qutb's tafsir saying that sections of it were inspired by Allah and that all Salafis should read a certain chapter in Milestones. My Response: If anyone wants to know the truth of this affair - I sincerely encourage you to look to www.salafipublications.com about what the scholars say about Syed Qutb. Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd and Ibn Jibreen's very short words have no basis with the weight of evidence against Syed Qutb and the sayings of the likes of Al-Albaanee, Ibn Baaz, Ibn al-Uthaymeen, Rabee, Muqbil etc.. so again I say: just because someone responds (and in the case of Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd, just a small pamphlet) to another does'nt mean that the response is correct ! Shaykh Rabee has brought over 700 pages of proof against the methodology of Syed Qutb and gave him the Jarh (criticism) that was just and correct and as I said before Al-Albaanee said that Shaykh Rabee is the Imaam of Jarh (criticism) and tadeel of this age.... So my brothers and sisters justice is hard to find in these times - so look at www.salafipublications.com and you will find the truth in this affair.

Again look at Abu Khadeejah's "Salafi" manhaj. Notice how he weighs truth and falsehood based on the fact that Bakr Abu Zaid refuted Rabi in a few pages and Rabi then wrote hundreds of pages. Also why do you run away from al-Albani's praise of Sayyid Qutb and his disparging remarks of what Rabi wrote in the section read to him by Adnan Aroor? Why run and hide?

[25. Differentiation between the Saved and the Victorious group]

Ali then said:

And when this group attacked Salman al-'Awda for distinguishing between the saved sect and the victorious group, we heard the statements of Ibn Jibrin and we read the concurrence of what Salman opined by both al-Albani and Muqbil b. Hadi. My Response: Let us see what Albaanee said, that Salmaan al-Awdah's manhaj is hizbee/Ikhwaanee (i.e. deviated) and i've already told you above what Ibn Baaz said and there are too many tapes of Muqbil against the Surooree/hizbee/dawah of Salmaan and Safar to mention here and you can phone him if you wish or visit him and ask him. Again I ask you to refer to www.salafipublications.com and you will see what the scholars said about Salmaan al Awdah - Also distinguishing between saved sect and victorious group as Salmaan al-Awdah did is bidah that was not done by the Imaams of the Salaf - And Ibn Baaz rebuked him for that.

Why run away again from what Ali said? The point is that al-Albani and Muqbil agreed with Salman. Ibn Baz and Safar disagree. Ibn Jibrin sees it as a matter of ijtihad. Yet Rabi writes a whole book on the topic and his ignorant followers establish wala and bara on an issue which is ultimately one of ijtihad. So where is your manhaj now Abu Khadeejah?

Missing text - [26. False accusation on Ali at-Tamimi of lying upon Sheikh Ibn Baaz regarding the “Declaration and Clarification” signed by 33 students of knowledge in Kuwait]

Ali then said:

"Indeed, we had the declaration of the 33 Kuwaiti students of knowledge which refuted all their main notions and to which was appended Ibn Baz's approval."

[Abu Khadijah replies]

"My Response: Why do you mix truth with falsehood, fear Allaah"

Indeed, it is YOU who should fear Allah, for it was YOU who passed off the pusillanimous lie which you posted two years ago during Ramadhan on the Essex website (now "Salafipublications") which you had previously circulated in December 1996, where you claimed that Sh. Ibn Baz's praise and approval of the Kuwaiti document of 26 of Rabi' I, 1415 AH (A Declaration and Clarification Regarding Some of What is Occurring in the Da'wa Field in Kuwait), is, "A Surooori Forgery upon Shaikh Bin Baz."

You state:

<missing text>

To demonstrate your ignorance of current events, the Arabic language as well as your blind frenzy to discredit and slander Ali Al-Timimi, you first confused (a) Sh. Ibn Baz's negation of his approval of the SECOND memorandum of advice ("Mudhakiraat an-Naseehah", dated 19/3/1413 AH) forwarded by Saudi scholars to King Fahd, with (b) the Kuwaiti Declaration ("Bayan wa Towdheeh") TWO YEARS LATER, signed by 33 Kuwaiti students of knowledge, referring to the fitna in Kuwait; Sh. Ibn Baz approved and signed this document, (dated 7/5/1415 AH, document #994/kh).

You then deliberately highlighted certain ambiguous sentences within Sh. Ibn Baz's negation in order to maliciously deceive some naive youth into thinking that Sh. Ibn Baz's negation was written specifically to refute Ali Al-Timimi. Don't waste time with denials, as it is common knowledge that this took place in December 1996 when you vigorously circulated this text with the allegation that "Ibn Baz wrote a fatwa against Ali Al-Timimi." In fact, this highlighting still remains on your website for anyone to see. For example, you highlighted the following sentences:

* "...of the claim of the liar (za'mi kaadhibin) that Shaikh Abdul Azeez Bin Abdullah Bin Baaz - the General President for the Centre for Islamic Researches, Iftaa, Call and Guidance - has given it tazkiyyah (purification) [qad zakkaahaa]"

* "...what the treatise contains of falsehood [baatil], the opposite of the true state of affairs and the way in which it has been prepared and spread/published..."

* "...have worked to spread and further the causes of disunity, grudges, false accusations of blame/defects, or [have worked] to make such things materialise... and this gives evidence to the evil intent of the one who prepared it or to his ignorance of the state of affairs and to [the] deceiving of some of those who collaborated with them in [preparing] it...then it confirms and assures that this action is in opposition to the manhaj [methodology] of the legislated manner of giving advice [naseehah]"

* "...just as it warns from the various types of engagements [in] the deviated thoughts and holding onto the [fundamental] principles of groups [jamaa'aat] and sects [ahzaab] that are foreign."

I ask, is this type of cheap, deliberate deception, from the actions of the Salaf? On the contrary, the selecting of ambiguous statements in Ibn Baz's document to insinuate that the Shaykh was specifically replying to Ali Al-Timimi, is from the actions of con-artists, charlatans and the worst groups of Ahlul Bid'ah like the Rawafidh and the Sufis. Will you now publicly repent from your Ramadhan scandal and admit that Ali did not make the forgery of Ibn Baz's approval?

[27. About the categorisation of Tawheed]

Abu Khadeejah then says:

"Shaykh Ibn Baaz did not approve of Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah as a fourth category as brother Ali Timeemi claimed on one of lectures in the UK recorded on two tapes called "Advice to the Salafis of the UK" which was refuted by Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee with the same title ! In this lecture brother Ali claimed that Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah is a fourth category these 33 students and Ibn Baaz approved. I ask you did Ibn Baaz approve that statement of yours?... if not fear Allaah and the next time brother Ali Timeemi comes to England he should publicly take back this statement and take this lie back."

To which I say, go back to the tapes and quote Ali verbatim. It will be Apparent that neither he said al-Haakimiyyah is the fourth category or that Ibn Baz said so. The declaration states as follows (and I quote):

The tawhid of Allah is achieved by:

* Believing in Allah's Oneness in His Lordship (Rububiyah) by singling [Him] out in [His] Sovereignty, Creation, and Dominion.

* Believing that He alone is to be worshipped and purifying all worship to Him in all its forms.

* Believing in the Uniqueness of His Names and Attributes, by describing Him as He described Himself and as His Messenger e described Him, without tashbih, ta'til, takyif, tahrif, ta'wil, or tajhil; and by believing Him in all what He has informed, that it is really and truly as how He informed, in general in those passages that are general and in specific in those passages that are specific.

* Singling out Allah in [His] Sovereignty (hakimiyah) by placing forward Allah's Judgment and that of His Messenger and [by placing forward] obedience to Allah and to His Messenger over the obedience shown to anyone else and judgment given by anyone else. It is impermissible for anyone to step outside of that. Allah-ta'ala-has said:

Judgment belongs only to Allah. (12:40)

And:

And He associates in His rule no one. (18:62)

And:

But no, by the Lord! they will not believe till they make you the judge regarding the disagreement between them. (4:65).

'Allama Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al al-Shaikh-may Allah be merciful with him-has said in his work, Tahkim al-Qawanin (Judging to Laws):

To judge to the sharia [alone] and nothing else is the twin half of worshipping Allah [alone] and no one else.

While 'Allama al-Shinqiti-May Allah be merciful with him-has said:

To commit shirk with Allah in judging is of the same meaning as to commit shirk in His worship, there is no difference between the two in any manner. There is no difference in any sense between he who follows a system (nizam) other than Allah's system or law other than Allah's law (sharia) and he who worships an idol or prostrates to a false god. They are the same and both are polytheists [associating others] with Allah. (Adwa' al-Bayan, 7:162)

The authors of the declaration mentioned four distinct matters and Ibn Baz approved. No one has said Tawhid is to be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 40 categories! And as brother Abuz-Zubair has shown, Ali normally teaches Tawhid as two categories tawhid in belief and tawhid in deed.

[28. Attacks upon the senior scholars]

Ali then said:

"However this group insisted on their error. Instead of approaching these issues with an open mind, their fanatacism and partisanship led them to a state of denial and wickedness in argumentation. The Kuwaiti declaration became a Sururi forgery. The documented statements of the 'ulima became abrogated. The scholars of major repute like Ibn Jibrin and Bakr Abu Zaid were dismissed and in private they were called heretics. In the end neither Ibn Baz, nor Ibn Utahmin, nor al-Albani could escape their wrath and demented views."

[Abu Khadijah says in response]

"My Response: Stop trying to agitate the people into a frenzy and an atmosphere of paranoiya - Let us look at the facts and not at emotions."

Why are you so agitated? Is it because you are the one who spread the lie of a Suroori forgery? Why not come clean? Why dance around the issue?

"You say 'in private they were called heretics'... fear Allaah, anyone can make a claim, but as the Salaf used to say that "Isnaad is the Deen" and "The Isnaad is the weapon of the believer" and as Muhammed Ibn Sireen said: "Name us your men" -"

You know what you said to Ali in private in Leicester and Allah knows and is witness. You then said:

"So who said from the salafi shaykhs that these two are heretics? As for Ibn Baaz, Ibn Uthaymeen and Al-Albaanee, then noone loves them more than we Salafis and their noble students.... Stop the emotional claims and stop trying to confuse sincere brothers and sisters."

What about your Shaykh al-Askar who attacked al-Albani in the Saudi papers and accused of deviation from Salafiyah? Even Ali al-Halabi could not come out and call al-Askar what he is in his defense of al-Albani.

[29. Questions without answers]

He then says:

"You should sit with Shaykh Ali Hasan al-Halabee and Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee and Shaykh Abu Anas Hamad al-Uthmaan and put your claims to them next time they come to the West and maybe they can clear your confusion brother."

A word to the wise; follow your own advice. In fact, if anyone is stumbling in confusion, it is yourself. Indeed, your inability to respond to the aforementioned Kuwaiti document is matched only by your inability to respond to specific questions I asked you and Amjad over two years ago, where in a message dated 96-10-15 09:18:19 EDT, Amjad wrote:

"I haven't forgotten your post and do intend to reply. However since I do not have the capacity to answer some of the things you have mentioned in your posts regarding Burjis, Rabee and others whom you alluded to (such as Abdullaah al-Farsee etc.) - your messages (and also mine so they understand the course of the discussion) have been passed on to them via fax. I await their response to your emails and the statements you made regarding their manhaj and aqeedah etc... Once I get the reply, I will post it inshaa'allaah. Until then, please have patience."

[30. al-Ghunaymaan and Ibn Baaz on categorisation of Tawheed]

Ali then said:

"However, al-hamdulillah, Allah has promised to preserve His religion and with time the major scholars began to address these issues. With regards to the topic referred to as hakimiya, we first heard Ibn al-Ghunayman's fatwa that the issue of the division of tawhid is not one that leads someone into heresy."

[To which Abu Khadijah replies]

"My response: I refer you to my previous answers on the issue of: just because someone responds does not mean he is correct. What is correct is what is found from the Salaf and what the scholars bring today by way of evidences. Running around looking anyone who will support you is not from the methodology of the Salaf!"

Again your ignorance betrays you. The point is this issue is not one of those matters which is agreed upon by the Salaf and therefore deserving wala and bara. Ibn al-Ghunayman is considered to be among the leading scholars in the umma on aqidah. His commentary on Kitab at-Tawhid from Sahih al-Bukhari is sufficient. He was hounded out of Medina by some ignorant people and their state supported activities. Why is the ijtihad of Ibn al-Ghunayman any less worthy than other ijtihadat? Is it because he disagrees with your group? Also in Sh Abdur-Rahman's book (which was the intent of the initial post) He has the following headings in chapter one:

The types of Allah's tawheed (Anwa' at-Tawhid): * Tawhid ar-Rububiya * Tawhid al-Uluhiya * Tawhid al-Hukm * Tawhid al-Asma' was-Sifat

If this were incorrect, then why didn't Ibn Baz correct this if this was such an issue as you would like to portray? Why on the contrary, did he praise the book and suggest it be printed and distributed?

Ali then said:

"We then had the fatwa from hay'a kibar al-ulima that Murad Shukri's book was one of bid'a (Irja') trying to pass itself off as a book of the Sunna and that the author and publisher must publically renounce these ideas."

[To which Abu Khadija responds]

"My Response: I've already dealt with this above."

...And we have shown your deception in the above!

[31. Ibn Baaz’s praise and recommendation for Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq’s work “as-Siraat”]

Ali then said:

"And now we have what I hope in Allah will bring an end for once and all to these teachings Ibn Baz's praise of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq's book as-Sirat and his recommendation that the book is worthy of being published and distributed."

[To which Abu Khadijah says]

"My Response: The this reference if anything is for this particular book - this does not now mean that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is the Imaam of Ahlus-Sunnah rather he is a hizbee."

Again, notice his deviation and slander. Why not accept the truth Abu Khadeejah? This does not mean that Sh. Abdur-Rahman is infallible but the fact is the book which he wrote entitled "as-Sirat Usul Manhaj Ahl as-Sunna wa l-Jama'a fi l-Itiqad wal-Amal" (The Path: The Fundamentals of Ahl as-Sunna wa l-Jama'a in Belief and Action) and to which he wrote in the introduction, "The aim and goal by Allah's permission that this treatise will be a program for study by the students of knowledge throughout the whole Islamic world." (p. 5) Ibn Baz then says print and distribute it! What a humiliation for your astray group.

Abu Khadeejah then goes on to vilify the Shaykh and says:

"And the proof of his hizbiyyah and hatred for the correct manhaj"

Open your eyes Ya Aba Khadeejah! Ibn Baz has praised his book on manhaj and you say Sh. Abdur-Rahman has "hatred for the correct manhaj."

He then continues

"is that he is continually being told by the major scholars to correct his manhaj - For example Al-Albaanee calling him a hizbee/ikhwaanee, Ibn Baaz ordering him to repent for his vicious attacks upon the Imaams of the Sunnah, Shaykh Saaleh Fawzaan asking him to correct his manhaj and Shaykh Rabee ibn Haadee refting him in two volumes for which Shaykh Saalih Fawzaan, Al-Albaanee, Muqbil praised him for, Shaykh Muqbil al-Waadiee ordeing him to stop corrupting the manhaj and the sunnah and to leave the methods of hizbiyyah and the ikhwaanees."

Again, this is a twisting of the truth. Where did Ibn Baz ask him to repent from what you characterize as "his vicious attacks upon the imaams of the Sunnah"? Will you not stop lying? Ibn Baz found seven minor passages which he corrected. Yet Ibn Baz still praises Sh. Abdurrahman. Yes, al-Albani criticized Sh. Abdur-Rahman and Sh. Abdur-Rahman responded in an open hiwar in the Kuwaiti "Furqan" magazine where he exposed those around al-Albani like Muhammad Shaqra and their ideas. On the other hand, Rabi and Muqbil are well known for their extremist statements. Ibn Jibreen took issue with Rabi's statements regarding both Sayyid Qutb and Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq. And Muqbil has left no one under the sun which he has not critcized not even Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymin, let alone those less than them in rank like Sh. Abdur-Rahman. Also if you look at Muqbil's statements regarding Sh. Abdur-Rahman then all began with Sh. Abdur-Rahman criticizing Juhayman and his followers calling them Khawarij and not Salafis and telling people in an article in al-Watan newspaper in almost twenty years ago that the Imams of the Salafis where Ibn Baz and Ibn Humaid. So where do you stand with Juhayman? Indeed many of the main ideologues of this group where with one non-Salafi group or another. Rabi was an Ikhwani for more than ten years. And Falah al-Harbi and Muqbil were with Juhayman and sympathetic to his cause. They then went from one extreme to another.

[32. An acknowledgement that Ibn Baaz recommended Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq’s book to be read]

You then write:

"So let us call be sensible, yes if Ibn Baaz praised the book, then it is the book that he is asking you to benefit from - not from the hizbee/ikhwaanee ideas of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq."

So if you admit that Ibn Baz said to benefit from this book will you read it, will you distribute it. Be truthful and do not hide away from the question.

[33. Conclusion and some shocking facts]

Ali then said:

"To my brothers who are still mixed up in these ideas, this is the month of Ramadan a month of repentance. If you truly love the way of the Salafand truly wish to follow the way of the major scholars (as I believe in my heart you do), then I hope you take the opportunity to read as-Sirat and compare it with what you have been taught regarding Salafiya. May Allah guide us to what is correct and pleasing unto Him. Your brother in Islam"

[To which Abu Khadijah responds]

"My Response: And I too pray that you stop misleading the sincere brothers and sisters and that you make tasfiyah (puification) of you manhaj and you repent for you dawah to misguidance - that you should at the feet of the scholars and clarify your confusion, and that this will not be achieved by sitting in Washington DC expecting Ibn Baaz or Ibn Uthymeen or Albaanee or Rabee or Muqbil or Ali Al-Halabee or Saleem Hilaalee to come knocking on your door - rather knowledge is attained by going out and seeking it.

Abu Khadeejah as-Salafee"

Ma sha'allah this is the manhaj of the Salaf!

Face it Abdu Khadeejah, the REAL issue is that almost three years later, yourself and the others with you are still smarting from Ali's lecture, "A Word of Advice to the Salafis of the UK". A lecture which yourself and others along with you have failed to this day, to refute ANY of its points. This lecture, based on the Kuwait declaration, has for almost three years, been a thorn in your side, as you and the others with you have sought to use every devious manner possible to discourage people from listening to tapes of Ali's lecture, claiming that, "his speech caused fitnah among the brothers."

The truth of the matter is that the lecture exposed at long last, the witch hunt ethics of your group. Muslims finally understood the reasons behind your backbiting and lies. The only "fitnah" it caused was for yourself and others with you. Now after almost three years time, you and others with you, have only been able to respond to the lecture with deliberate fabrications, curses and ambiguous analogies. Indeed, it was the aforementioned lecture which confronted you with shariah proofs and concrete FACTS (all delivered with an element you lack, adab), regarding the following matters:

Your denial of the principle of tawheed al-hakimiyyah

-Your denial of fiqh al-waqi -Your denial of jihad -Your persistence in derision, public abuse and dishonoring Muslims without true justification and accusing whoever differs with you as being from jama'a at-takfir.

This in essence, exposes not only your ignorance of the Salafi da'wah, but exposes the lie of those brothers who claim that they follow the major scholars like Ibn Baz. On the contrary, you and others with you, have become entangled in a movement which claims Salafiah as its way, yet which seeks to destroy independent da'wah work on a global level, and put it under the direct supervision of the Saudi regime and the designs of the New World Order. Indeed, it was not until after Abu Muntasir's London lecture on Feb. 23, 1997 exposing your web page shamanism, that you inexplicably deleted the hyperlink to your post. Yet your deletion of the hyperlink is but the "tip of the iceberg" regarding a multiplicity of your web page travesties and sloppy pseudo-scholarship, which insha Allah, I will demonstrate.

One cannot help but notice on your page, various contradictions that reach the level of comic proportions. For example, you have a vehement and caustic rebuttal of those who say Allah's attributes are allegorical. However you then refer readers to Assad Busool's translation of Aqeedah Waasitiyyah (the entire text of which is featured on your site). While the translation is for the most part good, Busool himself maintains that Allah's attributes are allegorical -and he says this- on your page. A closer examination of his footnotes on Allah's attributes (which you also include on your website), Busool boldly states, "I believe that these attributes should be explained allegorically..."[!!!] Elsewhere in the same footnotes, he uses a fabricated hadeeth (often cited by Sufis) regarding the seventy Abdal.

Thus Abu Khadeejah, again a word to the wise- follow your own advice. Remember that to err is human, and to admit to one's errors is noble. To deny them, is childish and cowardly. May Allah keep us all upon his path and not cause any hatred to dwell in our hearts.

Wa salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

Abu Umar