Reply To Critics

Indeed all praise is due to Allaah, as such we should praise Him, seek His help and ask His forgiveness. We seek refuge with Allaah from the evils within ourselves and the evils resulting from our deeds. Whoever Allaah guides, none can misguide and whoever Allaah allows to go astray, none can guide. I bear witness that there is no God worthy of worship but Allaah alone, without partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad (pbuh) is His slave and Messenger.

To proceed:
I would first like to say that it is not my intention to enter the revolving door of endless responses opened by my brother Aboo Khadeejah with his nine page public barrage in response to a brief explanatory paragraph which I privately gave to some brothers in Sri Lanka who questioned me concerning the up coming conferences being held in the USA and the UK geared to exposing me and others. Consequently, I hope that this first and last response will sufficiently clarify the issues for whoever seeks the truth with regards to the accusations thrown at me by Aboo Khadeejah and others. As for those who insist on having the last word and spreading fitnah among the ranks of sincere Muslims, disguised under the banner of Defending the way of the Salaf, I will follow Allaah, the Most Exalted and Glorious’ advice “And if they hear al-laghw (evil, vain, false talk), they withdraw from it and say, ‘For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds. Peace be with you. We do not seek the ignorant ones.” (28:55). For it is evident from the negative tones and words used in the first attack that no matter what I say or how many evidences they receive, it will be of no avail. While Allaah said, “Do not let your dislike of a people cause you to be unjust. Be just, that is nearer to taqwaa.” (5:8) And I pray that Allaah makes me worthy of being among those He Himself defends, as He said, “Indeed Allaah defends those who believe.” (22:38) And what is left for me is, “a Beautiful patience, for Allaah is the (only) One whose help can be sought against that which you proclaim.” (12:18). If students of knowledge of the stature of Shaykh Abul-Hasan al-Misree al-Maribee can be labeled a hizbee because he opened in Yemen a branch of Dar al-Birr (the charitable organization in which I also work, and at which Shaykhs ‘Alee Hasan, Saleem, Khaalid al-Ambaree, ‘Abdul-Malik Ramadaanee all give lectures and classes), who is a simple student like myself to complain.

Secondly, as I see it, there are some elements in our midst who are masquerading as Salafees who really do need to be exposed. However, a vocal minority among our English-speaking and Arab Salafee brothers with limited knowledge have high jacked this legitimate need and gone overboard with it. They have taken it upon themselves to act as the ultimate judges of common Muslims and students of knowledge. They claim to have the criterion by which they can justly expel whoever they please out of the realm of Salafiyyah. Much valuable time is dedicated to slandering those who have been already labeled, or to searching for the past or present mistakes of those on the current hit-list. Furthermore, if anyone disagrees with them on any issue, they issue severe warnings to him and if he doesn’t fall in line, they then proceed to warn against him also, and attribute their actions to the Salafee manhaj, under the name of jarh and ta’deel. They have made it a hobby to search for ambiguous statements of the popular du’aat, and then they distort and twist the statements to suit their personal agendas, and publicize them in other than their correct context. They then label the da’ee or student of knowledge as being of ahlul bid’ah wal ahwaa (the people of innovation and desires), and relegate him to In addition to that, anyone who knows or affiliates with any of the people crossed off the list also gets the boot and anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone from those they’ve labeled also gets labeled a deviant. Likewise any Islamic center or Masjid which hasn’t managed to keep up with the latest list of and inadvertently invites any of those labeled deviant gets branded as well. Subsequently, anyone who goes to an Islamic center or masjid which has been labeled deviant, also becomes labeled a deviant. And so on and so forth. It has gotten so bad that recently when a friend of mine was speaking on a mobile phone to the head of Brixton Masjid, I asked that he pass the phone to me so that I can give him salaams as we were once old friends, and he told the brother not to pass me the phone, refusing to even accept and return basic salaams from and to me. Furthermore, after a congregational prayer in a masjid in Birmingham a couple of years ago, some of the brothers saw me in the masjid and quickly left and crossed over to the other side of the road, to avoid giving me salaams or being seen giving me salaams, which they themselves confessed to Khalid Barry (a British student in Madeenah University who was with me at the time). And when I mentioned these two incidents to Shaykh ‘Alee Hasan al-Halabee, he stated that such actions are clearly wrong and inappropriate and should not be done.

In contrast, Allaah describes the believers in His Noble Book as making the following du’aa, “Our Lord, do not place in our hearts hatred toward the believers.” (59:10) Yet some of our brothers have been doing just the opposite: placing enmity in the hearts of the people against the believers. It is sad that conferences, which used to be gatherings of learning, imparting beneficial knowledge, spreading the Sunnah, and increasing our eemaan, have been turned into gatherings of character assassination and maligning scholars, students of knowledge, and du‘aat. So much so that the hearts of those who attend these conferences have become hardened with hatred toward many students of knowledge, who have dedicated their lives to spreading the correct ‘aqeedah and Sunnah, and who should in fact be loved for the sake of Allaah. Rather, we should advise one another and try to guide our brothers if we see them make mistakes or see them straying from the correct manhaj. We should not rejoice nor feel triumphant when we see our brothers fall or err; so as not be like those whom Allaah describes saying, “If some good comes to you it grieves them, while if some evil befalls you they rejoice at it.” (3:120) We should give one another the benefit of the doubt: Perhaps he has a shubhah (doubt or point of confusion) about such and such an issue, perhaps he does not know the proofs regarding such and such an issue, perhaps this mistake, in his view, was based on what he held to be knowledge, but rather it was statements of scholars taken out of context, etc. Allaah describes the believers as being harsh to the disbelievers, and merciful with the believers. (48:29) Now, it has been reversed. Some of these brothers in a recent lecture in the United States went so far as to say about me that I am worse than the Jews and Christians! May Allaah protect us from that which they ascribe us to. This state of random labeling and boycotting has become among the greatest fitnahs of our time, where Satan creates fitnah cloaked in an Islaamic garb. He disguised this fitnah under an honorable name, under the name of Truth, under the name of Salafiyyah. While the noble Salafee manhaj, the only way to attain success, is innocent of such behavior. The path of true guidance, i.e. Salafiyyah, was never intended to be an exclusive club, in which certain individuals can grant membership and confiscate it from whomsoever they please. This attitude is similar to the very hizbiyyah (factionalism) which our brothers are trying to fight.

I advise these brothers of ours to spend their time beneficially, learning the basics, studying Arabic, tajweed, the classic works of ‘aqeedah, such as al-‘Itisaam, al-Usool ath-Thalaathah, Kitaab at-Tawheed, al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah, al-‘Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah, etc. under scholars in the original Arabic. And, rather than trying to take some quotes here and there from great scholars like Shaykhs Nasirud-Deen al-Albaanee, Bin Baaz, ‘Uthaymeen, and Muqbil, may Allaah have mercy on them all, I recommend that they actually listen to and study their tapes. Al-hamdulillah, there are many commentaries of Shaykh ‘Uthaymeen on the various books of ‘aqeedah, and tafseers, etc and Silsilat al-Hudaa wan-Noor, the tapes of Shaykh al-Albaanee, rahimahullaah, are available in the hundreds for them to actually listen to from beginning to end.

Finally, I sincerely advise all my brothers and sisters to remember that we are all going to stand for account before Allaah and answer for every word we said (or wrote); and we should remember that injustice is a great sin indeed. Let us all (myself included) never forget that the source of guidance and light is Allaah, the Most Exalted, so we should sincerely pray to Him to guide us to the Truth, and regularly make the du’aa: allaahumma arinal haqqa haqqan warzuq nattibaa’u wa arinal baatila baatilan warzuq najtinaabuh O Allaah, show as the Truth as truth, and grant us the blessing of following it, and show as falsehood as falsehood, and grant us the blessing of staying away from it.
We should beg for Allaah’s divine guidance with our hearts free from diseases, such as envy, hatred, fear of not being accepted by people, or a desire to maintain a good reputation amongst some. I ask Allaah to expose the reality to those who sincerely desire the Truth.

Following is a Point by Point Response to the Actual Issues Raised by AbooKhadeejah in his First Nine-Page Volley


As far as Aboo Khadeejah’s statement, “… he has disassociated himself from the Salafi students of knowledge, du’aat and callers in the West (and in the Khaleej) in favour of the People of Hizbiyyah and Desires,” this is far from the truth. I not only associate with salafees, I openly attribute myself to Salafiyyah. I have given many lectures entitled, “Salafiyyah”, based on Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee’s tape, Limaatha ikhtarnaa al-Minhaj as-Salafee (Why we chose the Salafee Minhaj). I dedicated a section of my ‘aqeedah intensive course in Dubai to the topic “Following the Salafee manhaj.” I also taught on various occasions the first three chapters of Shaykh Abdul Malik Ramadaanee al-Jazaa’iree’s book Sitt Durar fee Usool Ahlil- Athar.
When Shaykhs Ali Hasan, Saleem and Khalid al-Ambaree gave a weeklong series of lectures last Ramadaan, I attended them. And during the last visit of Shaykhs Ali and Saleem this summer, I spent several hours in private discussion with them. Furthermore, the last visit of Shaykh Husayn al-‘Awaayshah I spent time with him and he (and his family) had lunch with me (and mine). While Shaykh Mahmoud Atiyyah (one of Sh Al-Albaanee’s students) was living in the Emirates, I often used to call him on Islamic issues (he was banned from having circles). Furthermore, since Aboo Abdillaah al-Mawsilee (another of Sh Al-Albaanee’s students) has moved to the Emirates, I have regularly relied on him for answers to various questions. Likewise, I was in regular contact with Sh Abdullaah Sabt from my arrival here in the Emirates in 1994. As to the du’aat of the West, I was in contact with Aboo Usaamah, Fareed Abdullaah, Dr Muhammad Jibaly, Yahya Ibrahim, and ‘Abdur Raheem Green (before he was cancelled from the “list”). Furthermore, I most often gave and continue to give lectures at Masjid Khaalid ibn Waleed in Toronto, known as the most active and knowledgeable Salafee center whose administration are Madeenah graduates and whose chief administrator is Sh Basheer as-Somaalee whose minhaj and knowledge of hadeeth was attested to by students of Sh Al Albaanee and others. (But I heard they were recently dropped off the list because ‘Adnaan ‘Ur‘oor give talks there after he was cancelled off the list.) My close friends are not people of hizbiyyah and I do try to maintain a distance from people of hizbiyyah in general. When I say I do not make hajr from them, I mean that I do not go as far as to refuse to give them salaams if I happen to see them, etc.

Furthermore, as to my supposed disassociation from “the Salafee students of knowledge”, there is evidence to the contrary in Aboo Khadeejah’s statement that I met with the students of Madeenah university. Last year (2000 when I got my first opportunity to make ‘Umrah since leaving Saudi Arabia), I took it upon myself to visit the students in Madeenah and asked them to express all the doubts and rumors they had regarding my manhaj. None of these brothers or any brothers in the UK (with the exception of Abu Sufyaan, who pointed out a possible error in my book Islamic Studies Book 2, which I accepted to ambiguous wording and have instructed the publisher, al-Hidaayah, to change the phrase – wa jazaahullaahu khayran) ever came and sat with me to point out my errors or clarify rumors. At any rate, I went to see them, due to my concern about the brotherhood and my desire to strengthen the ranks of those committed to the Salafee manhaj. We sat from after Salaatul-‘Ishaa until Salaatul-Fajr and discussed many issues. I clarified that statements attributed to me regarding ‘aqeedah as not being important were false, as well as other issues, such as the widespread false claim that I gave a “fatwaa” to the effect that women in the West can remove their hijaab and go to university and to work! Not only did I never make such a deviant statement, I never even thought it. I explained, that in a lecture which I gave on the responsibility of community to new converts, I only mentioned the following scenario: if a woman accepted Islaam and the community didn’t come to her support and she was forced to go out and work to provide the basic necessities for herself and children, and she thoroughly searched for a job in which she can keep her hijaab but all her genuine attempts failed, then she removed her scarf to get the only job available, then the community would carry the sin for not coming to her aid, if they were able, and she would be excused by Allaah, in shaa Allaah. (This is based on the principle of dire necessity (ad-durooraat) make permissible the impermissible). And a brother who was studying under Usaamah al-Qoosee in Egypt, called up Shaykh Muqbil, rahimahullaah, himself when he was in the United States receiving medical treatment and presented the above scenario to him for verification. He asked the shaykh, in such a case, can one say that she is not in sin but the community is, for not coming to her aid? He responded that yes, this is correct. If you want this information verified from the brother directly, please email me and I will give you his email address.

As to the statement that their advice was to no avail, it is not that I rejected what they had to say about Muntada or brushed off what they had to say. I explained that I had given lectures in al-Muntada and other subtly or clearly hizbee organizations believing that this was permissible based on my understanding that Shaykh Naasir permitted it, as long as one does not accept any conditions they place on him and calls to the Salafee minhaj. I also pointed out to the brothers that years ago, out of a desire to be just, when I first heard rumors about al-Muntada, I gathered the du’aat in London and sat with al-Muntada’s administration and raised questions concerning their manhaj. They affirmed the salafee manhaj and that they did not support any call to rebellion against Muslim rulers or declaring them apostates, etc. The point which remained was their sale of the magazine as-Sunnah in their establishment, even though they claimed to distance themselves from the outlandish statements of Muhammad Suroor. When they were advised not to, they agreed to stop selling the magazine there. So at that time, the rumors appeared to me to be false, and I preferred to give them the benefit of the doubt. So I did not speak there with the intention to support any deviant ideas. However, the brothers insisted that these elements and others were present in al-Muntada and that if I addressed them directly, they wouldn’t allow me to lecture there anymore. So I even suggested to them to make a list of all the issues, and promised that the next lecture I gave there, I would address each and every issue. Some of the brothers accepted that, while others didn’t. At that point, I said that I would continue to lecture there until clear evidence comes to me of their deviance at which time, I would cease lecturing there altogether. And Shaykh ‘Alee Hasan told me directly that the fact that I didn’t accept the advice on Muntada right away in the past out of a desire to not go on rumors is justified, as I had a right to look into the issues myself since I was a daa’ee and student of knowledge, so that if I am asked about them I would be able to explain from a position of knowledge and not rumor. However, since then (last summer), when Shaykh ‘Alee and Shaykh Saleem advised me to stop going there, I agreed based on some explanations Shaykh ‘Alee provided me as to their hidden nature and largely based on what I know of Shaykh ‘Alee and his just methodology in dealing with such issues, may Allaah preserve and reward him, as well as his restraint from passing judgments based on mere rumor or conjecture. So when it came from a person of knowledge, whom I trust, I accepted it without any problem, as I would not want to aid them in an erroneous manhaj nor do I want my lectures there to be used as an excuse for people to accept the mistakes in their manhaj.


As regards my, as Aboo Khadeejah put it, “open declaration of alliance and affiliation with JIMAS and al-Muntada either through speech or action or both” which he has demanded that I make an open retraction of and an open declaration of my freedom (baraa’a) from them. I don’t believe that I openly declared alliance and affiliation with them through lecturing among them any more than lecturing in universities indicate my allegiance to the various Muslim student organizations there. I do not support any bid’ahs and misconceptions which they have. I do openly declare my freedom from any errors in their manhaj, both those I am aware of and those I am not, whether apparent or hidden, as I declare my freedom from the manhaj of groups like Jamaati Islaami, the Ikhwaan, Hizb at-Tahreer, Jamaa’at Tableegh, etc. whose errors are definitely not as hidden. And as I stated, I already agreed and made a commitment that I would not speak there, as a method of distancing myself from elements of hizbiyyah and showing my disapproval of anything other than the clear salafee manhaj; and I think that this speaks for itself. I further decided, on my own will, that I would have myself removed from the academic board of London Open College, due to certain surooree elements I myself smelled from some of its people.


As to Aboo Khadeejah’s baseless statement, “… So how will he speak against ‘their bid’ah and errors’ if he himself is unaware of the bid’ah and errors? You cannot give what you don’t have – verily ships do not sail upon dry land!” I have indeed written and spoken on numerous occasions about the deviation of hizbiyyah and innovations of modern Islamic movements and groups. For example, the following is a quote from my book “The Moral Foundations of Islamic Civilization” currently being studied by students in my Islamic Online University course and taught in a number of intensive courses given in Ireland, Montreal and the UK as well as at the American University in Dubai.


In the beginning of the twentieth century movements and groups arose calling to the return of Islamic rule in Muslim lands and to the reformation of Muslim beliefs and practices. Among the political movements were those of Hasan al-Bannaa (d. 1949), founder of the Ikhwaan Muslimoon movement in Egypt and Sayyid, Abul-A’laa Mawdudi (1903-1979), founder of the Jama‘at Islami movement in India. Both of these movements called for the establishment of an Islamic state to replace the existing colonial or neo-colonial administrations. Consequently, they both came into conflict with the rulers of their areas. One of the members of the Ikhwaan, Jamaal ‘Abdun-Naasir, seized control of the government and systematically rounded up members of the movement and tortured and executed many of them in order to crush it. The Ikhwaan was then forced underground, and became a secret society which developed a structure similar to communist cells in order to continue to operate. Oaths of allegiance were required of all members and the call for Islamic State evolved into a recruitment drive for members. Many of them entered a dangerous realm, declaring the Muslim rulers disbelievers, due to the fact that they did not rule according to what Allaah revealed, and many others even called for revolt against the rulers, an action strictly prohibited by the Prophet (s). They neglected the rectification of issues of ‘aqeedah and others, deserving first priority, and made their focus the establishment of an Islaamic state. Very little efforts were made to correct beliefs and practices as collecting members became the chief priority. Controversial issues of beliefs and practices were seen as divisive and, as such, were deliberately avoided. Their members who fled to the West to avoid persecution and further their academic studies set up student organizations like F.O.S.I.S. and M.S.A. and I.S.N.A. through which members continued to be recruited.

Another movement arose in India during this period which prided itself in being totally apolitical. Maulana Muhammad Ilyas founded what came to be known as the Tabligh Movement. Its main focus was on bringing Muslims back to the mosques which had become empty over the years of Colonial rule. In order to appeal to the general masses, its founder combined the practices of the major sufi sects of the continent in its inner teachings. Travel to different locations to invite Muslims was added to its outer practices. However, those traveling to give the “da’wah” are mostly ignorant people, while the Prophet (s) used to send out scholars to teach the people and call them to Islaam. And when he sent them, he did not instruct them to spend a few days, weeks, or months in a masjid, nor did he instruct them to call people to come to the masjid then invite them to go out and give da’wah with the group. Rather, he instructed that they live among the people until they learned their religion, and ordered them to call to the correct ‘aqeedah first and foremost. And they were not to call to anything else until the people understood laa ilaaha illallaah, as is evident in the hadeeth of his sending Mu‘aath ibn Jabal as well as others. And the Tabligh’s fixed numbers of days and months to travel have no basis in the Sunnah or the practice of the Sahaabah. Yet its apolitical stance has enabled it to spread to all corners of the Muslim world without resistance from Muslim or non-Muslim governments. However, very little effort is made to correct the beliefs and practices of its members and its main text, Tablighi Nisab, is filled with inauthentic material. The tradition of Taqleed remained alive in all of these movements as avoiding it facilitated recruitment of followers.

Parallel to the previously mentioned movements, another set of movements evolved from the tradition of the earlier reformers who opposed Taqleed and called to a return to the Qur’aan and Sunnah as they were understood by the Prophet’s companions and the early generations of righteous scholars. These groups are generally referred to as the Salafee movements. In Egypt the Ansaar us-Sunnah movement was founded by Shaykh Haamid al-Fiqhee, ‘Abdur-Rahmaan al-Wakeel and ‘Abdur-Razzaaq Hamzah and in India the Ahli Hadith movement was formally established by Shaykh Thanaa’ullaah al-Amritsaree. (Although in time the latter too developed hizbee elements). The Salafee groups focused on the correction of Muslim beliefs and practices as a prerequisite for change. They opposed the factionalist attitudes which developed in the political movements as well as a negative attitude towards knowledge and innovated practices which had developed in the Tabligh movement. In the second half of the twentieth century the great Hadeeth scholar of our era, Naasir ad-Deen al-Albaanee, picked up the banner of Islamic Revival in Syria as did Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen in Saudi Arabia, completely free from any form of hizbiyyah. In Yemen, one of Shaykh Naasirud-Deen’s students, Shaykh Muqbil ibn Haadee continued the call to reform of beliefs and practices.

The ugly head of Hizbiyyah (factionalism), which had plagued Muslims through the misinterpretation of the math’habs, again reared its head in the political and apolitical movements of the twentieth century. These groups shared the common characteristic of fundamentally calling people to ‘their’ organization and to avoid others. The have ameers to whom the followers pledge oaths of allegiance which should only be given to the true leader of all Muslims. They all contain bits and pieces of what Muslims need, however, they are lacking the most fundamental component which is ‘Aqeedah (correct beliefs). Muslims do need to revive Islamic government and the caliphate and they do need to get Muslims back to the mosques. But the focus must be on ‘aqeedah, first and foremost. Gathering for the sake of overthrowing foreign rule in Algeria in the Fifties did not bring Islamic rule into place because the communist elements among the Muslim forces hijacked the ‘revolution’. In Afghanistan Muslim groups came together to combat the threat of communism, but after Russian forces were expelled and the communist regime overthrown, the Muslim groups turned on each other. In Egypt the Ikhwaan have tried to resurface under a political cover, patiently trying to work its way in through the political process. However, the next generation of youths, due to their lack of knowledge and upbringing were no longer prepared to wait. As far as they were concerned, the Islamic revival was taking place in Iran, the Islaamic state was being established now. Many from the Ikhwaan gave oaths of allegiance to Khomeini as the caliph. New offshoots from the Ikhwaan appeared under the names of Takfeer wal-Hijrah, Jamaa’atul-Jihaad, and al-Jamaa’ah al-Islaamiyyah with members prepared to seize power immediately. In these groups a philosophy of violence evolved which was justified by declaring all Muslim rulers to be disbelievers as well as all those who worked in state institutions… These failures are a result of their lack of focus on ‘aqeedah and their adopting a methodology which contradicts that of the Prophet (s) and his companions.

The Solution
The only solution to the current dilemma facing Muslims is to return to the true roots of Islamic civilization and culture. The way lies in rediscovering the correct sources of Islamic knowledge and the correct methodology of interpreting it. There is no other way. As Imaam Maalik said, “The latter part of this nation will not be able to reform itself successfully except by using what reformed its early part.” Prophet Muhammad (r) informed his followers that the Muslim nation would split up into 73 different sects, 72 of which lead to hell and only one leading to paradise. Then he clarified that the path to paradise was the path he was on and his companions were on. That is what is known as the way of the Salaf…”


I have been accused of getting my Islaamic “tarbiyah” from the likes of Muhammad Qutub and Maududi, and that I encourage people on my website to read specific books of his! Subhaanallaah, how things can be distorted to fit the desires! I mentioned in an interview on how I accepted Islaam, twenty-eight years ago, that before I was Muslim I was involved in the university Communist movement. Then I read a book by Muhammad Qutb and another by Maududi, which heightened my interest about Islaam (as a NON MUSLIM). Does this mean I received my Islamic tarbiyah from them, or that I aid their minhaj and mistakes? This is indeed tahreef (distortion).
And for the record, I do not consider Maududi and Muhammad Qutb to be true scholars. I put the word scholars in quotes to stress this point. Though they are not scholars to be relied on for knowledge, as the scholars are alhamdulillaah available, many laymen consider them such.

I do agree, based on my discussion with Shaykh Ali Hasan, that upon mentioning Muhammad Qutb’s name, or anyone else’s with an incorrect manhaj, that I should make a brief note pointing to his mistaken methodology. He also said that after making such a note and laying the foundation regarding him or others, that I need not do this every single time his name is mentioned in passing. So I will inshaa’Allaah make a footnote with this regard in the interview as to how I accepted Islaam on my web page. As to whether or not I am justified to say that I can recommend Muhammad Qutb’s book for non-Muslims coming from a political background, I will firstly go back over the book to make sure it in fact doesn’t have any major mistakes (as I read it twenty-nine years ago), and IF it doesn’t, I will ask Shaykh ‘Ali his view on my statement, then I will act according to his judgment inshaa’Allaah. If it does have any major mistakes, then I take back that statement.

Anyhow, as I mentioned previously, I studied in the University of Madeenah, and I used to sit in the circles of Shaykh al-Albaanee, Shaykh Bin Baaz, Sh Abdul Muhsin al Abbaad, Sh Ghunaymaan, Sh Muqbil, Sh Umar al Fulaataa and others, whose circles I attended during the six years that I studied there. I personally went to Shaykh Muqbil’s house and asked him to teach me takhreej (authentication of hadeeths), which he did, alhamdulillaah. Furthermore, I currently have over 500 tapes of Shaykh al-Albaanee, from which I’ve listened to nearly 200, and am still listening (daily), not to mention over 200 of his earlier tapes which I listened to in Saudi Arabia prior to emigrating to the Emirates. He is amongst my greatest role models, and Allaah knows I love him and his minhaj. He was indeed a great man.


I have been accused of taking isolated statements of Shaykh al-Albaanee, rahimahullaah, to suit my desires. The statement of Shaykh al-Albaanee to avoid practicing hajr (abandonment) of people of innovation, or those who fall into innovations, is not just on one tape, but several. And not once did I hear him speak about hajr any differently. Aboo Khadeejah responded by saying that Shaykh al-Albaanee encouraged people to expose the people who have fallen into innovation, and praised works in which their innovations were exposed. I did not say otherwise. I was not speaking about exposing innovations of innovators, nor of distancing ourselves from them, but of abandoning them, etc., and these are two different issues. So let us not confuse the issues for the people and let the readers judge for themselves the statements of Shaykh al-Albaanee, which, to my knowledge, he has not retracted or changed. The translation of the entire tape is available here. I encourage the readers to read the entire discussion of the Shaykh. The following is the context in which Shaykh Al Albaanee clearly spoke against the practice of hajr in our times.
“If we find in some of the statements of the scholars of the salaf rulings stating that one who falls into an innovation is in fact an innovator, it should be taken from the point of view that it is a statement of warning and not a statement of belief. Perhaps it is also suitable to mention on this occasion the well-known statement of Imaam Maalik: “The setting above is known, and how it is so is unknown, and asking about it is a form of innovation. So expel this man, for he is an innovator.” This famous narration took place in an occasion when a man came to Imaam Maalik and asked him about the rising above the throne, as regards to Allaah. Imaam Maalik responded, “The setting above is known, and how it is so is unknown, and asking about it is a form of innovation. So expel this man, for he is an innovator.” He did not become an innovator for merely asking about it; the man wanted to understand something. But Imaam Maalik feared that while questioning, he may make some statements which are against the belief of the salaf. So he told them to remove the man from the sitting. “Remove the man, for he is an innovator.” Look now how the means have differed. What do you think: if I or any other person of knowledge were asked the same thing by either the generality of Muslims or by specific groups amongst them who have more knowledge, do you think we should give the answer which Imaam Maalik gave? Would we tell the people to get him out of our gathering because he is an innovator? No. Why? Because the times are different. So the methods which were used in those times were acceptable then, but are not acceptable today because they will harm more than they will benefit. And we can add to this the principle of Hajr (boycotting), which is known in Islam. We are often asked, “So-and-so- a friend- doesn’t pray, he smokes, and he does this and that. Should we boycott him?” I say, “No, you should not boycott him because boycotting him is what he would like for you to do. Your boycotting him would not benefit him. In fact, it is the opposite, it would make him happy. And it would allow him to continue in his misguidance.” Not to mention, on this occasion, a Shaamee saying relative to a man who is corrupt and has abandoned prayer. This man repented and went to pray his first prayer in the masjid only to find the door of the masjid locked. His response to this was, “You’re closed, so I’ll drop the prayer.” That corrupt individual who has abandoned prayer, does he want the practicing Muslim to boycott him? This is just like the example- “You’re closed so I won’t bother to pray.” The [boycotted] man would similarly say, “I do not need his companionship; I do not want to be with him anyway.” This is because the companionship of the righteous with the corrupt prevents the latter from being free to do whatever he wants to do. The corrupt individual does not really want that. Thus, the boycotting of the un-righteous by the righteous is what the un-righteous prefers. Consequently, the Islaamically legal boycott is intended to fulfill a legal benefit, which is to teach that individual. So if the boycott in no way teaches him a lesson, but in fact, it increases him in misguidance on top of his already misguided state, in such a circumstance, boycotting is not applicable or appropriate. Consequently, today it is not suitable to imitate the methods used by the early scholars because they did so from a position of strength and the ability to prevent. Today look at the how the situation of Muslims is. They are weak in everything. Not only in the governments, but the individuals as well. The situation is as the Prophet (pbuh) described it when he said: “Islaam began as something strange and it will return again to become something strange, so give glad tidings to the Strangers.” He was asked, “Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah?” He responded, “They are people who believed, a few righteous individuals amongst many people; those who disobey them are many more than those who obey them.” So if we open the door of boycotting and declaring people innovators, we may as well go line in the mountains. What is obligatory on us today is to call to the way of our Lord with wise preaching and good expression and discuss with them with that which is better

Questioner: Is it true what we hear that (one should) boycott in these times, or should that not be implemented?
Shaykh al-Albaanee: He means to say it is preferable not to be implemented. What is correct is that boycotting is not implemented because the innovators and the corrupt are the majority. It would be better to say it is preferably not implemented. Perhaps the questioner intended myself. Whether he intended myself or not, I say yes, that is the case. It is better that it is not implemented and I already said so in no uncertain terms previously when I gave the Shaami saying.

Questioner: If there did come into existence an environment in which the majority of those in it were from Ahlus Sunnah, and there were some elements who innovated in Allaah’s religion for example, should boycotting be implemented or should it not be in this circumstance?
Shaykh al-Albaanee: It is obligatory that we use wisdom in dealing with the situation. The faction which has the upper hand and is strong, if they boycott the faction which has deviated from the community, will that benefit the faction that is holding on firmly to the truth? Or will it harm them? Now that is relative to them. Secondly, will those who have been boycotted by the main group, will that benefit them or will it harm them? That has been previously answered. It is not appropriate or suitable that we take these issues emotionally or enthusiastically. Instead it should be done cautiously and with wisdom. For example, one of them goes off and holds a position contradictory to the rest of the group. The others quickly say this is gheeratul Allaah (i.e. being jealous about Allaah’s laws that they not be broken), so we will boycott him. It is better to be kind and gentle with him, try to guide him, advise him, etc. Be his companion for some time. Then if you give up hope and there does not seem to be any hope for him to change, first and foremost, and then it is feared that his sickness will spread to Zayd and Bakr (i.e. to others), at this point, he would be boycotted if it seems most likely that boycotting him would be the best treatment. And as it is said, the last method of treatment is isolation. TODAY, I DO NOT ADVISE OR ENCOURAGE THE YOUTHS TO BOYCOTT BECAUSE IT HURTS AND HARMS MUCH MORE THAN IT BENEFITS. The biggest evidence of it is the fitnah which is presently existing in al-Hijaaz. They’re all brought together by the call to tawheed, the call to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. But some of them have their own unique activities, either in politics or in some other ideas which were not known before from any of the people of knowledge. [These ideas] could be erroneous or they could be correct, but we’re not able to bear to hear anything which is new; especially if it is an affair which is rejected in our opinion. And immediately, we begin to fight him. This is a mistake, brother. “You wish a friend who has no faults. But does sandalwood burn without smoke?” We wish if only the Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen will be with us on the principle of tawheed so that we would be with them. But they are not pleased with us even in the issues of ‘aqeedah. And they say that mentioning the differences has split up the group. These brothers, from whom some group has split off or they’ve split off from some group, and Allaah knows best, they are with us all along the way with regards to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah and the methodology of the righteous predecessors. But they have brought something new in reality, some of which is in error and some of which is correct. So why should we spread division amongst ourselves and factionalism and fanaticism when before we were one unit? So we then became two. After being two groupings, we then became three. They became “fashariyyoon” and “surooriyyoon”, etc. Allaahu Akbar! And they were not split up for anything which deserves splitting up for. There is no difference in the great issues that it could not be conceived that the salafees would differ in. We all know well that the sahaabah had differences in some issues, but their methodology was one. Thus, if one was to imagine that a group from Ahlus Sunnah wal jamaa‘ah and from the victorious group (at-Taa’ifah al-Mansoorah) has split off, we should take a hold of them with kindness and gentleness, brother, and we try to keep them with the jamaa‘ah. And we do not boycott them and cut them off except if we fear from them. And that will not become apparent immediately. It is not that simply when somebody expresses an opinion, in which he goes against the opinion or position of the group that it is appropriate for us to immediately boycott that individual. It should be done with patience, until it becomes clear to us that perhaps Allaah will guide his heart or it becomes evident to us that cutting him off is the best.”

Furthermore, Shaykh al-Albaanee gives conditions before a person can be referred to as being from among Ahlul-Bid’ah. Not only that, but he was known to give people the benefit of the doubt and make excuses for them, rather than being quick to judge them. For example he said on the same tape:

“From here, there is a necessary research that needs to be done. It is just as necessary for us to know who the innovator (al-mubtadi‘) is as it is for us to know who the disbeliever is. There is a question which must be asked at this point. Does anyone who falls into disbelief through actions become a disbeliever? Likewise, does the label of “innovator” in its totality apply to anyone who falls into an act of innovation, or is that not the case? If the answer is that it is not the case, then we can continue to look into the subject. And if it is not clear, then it needs to be clarified. I will repeat the issue involved in this question with additional detail. What is an innovation? A new affair or a new action which contradicts the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). The one who does it does so desiring to increase his or her closeness to Allaah, may He be Blessed and Exalted. Does everyone who commits an innovation become an innovator?
Questioner: No.
Shaykh al-Albaanee: Who then is the innovator?
Questioner: One to whom clear and convincing evidence has been brought and he insists on continuing to practice the innovation which he has committed.
Shaykh al-Albaanee: Good. So those about whom it was stated that mercy should not be asked for them, was clear evidence brought to them? Allaah knows best. What then is the foundational principle regarding them; that they are Muslims or disbelievers? It is that they are Muslims. Therefore, it is permissible for one to seek for Allaah’s mercy to be on them. The foundational principle, again, is that we should be able to seek forgiveness or mercy for them. Isn’t that the case? Then the issue has ended.”
Further on:
Questioner: Is there anything necessary besides establishing the proof on the disbeliever for them to be classified a disbeliever, or an innovator for them to be classified an innovator, or the sinful, like convincing or removing the doubts?
Shaykh al-Albaanee: No. This is not a necessity, but what is necessary is knowledge. It is the knowledge by which the proof is established. HE (I.E. THE ONE ESTABLISHING THE PROOF) SHOULD BE AN INHERITOR OF THE PROPHET (pbuh) (I.E. A SCHOLAR) AND NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL AMONG THE VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS.

He further said:
“I want to remind you of a reality on which there is no difference, and then I want to add to it something which the young people of our times are not thinking about. The reality is the statement of the Prophet (pbuh) mentioned in a number of hadeeths: “Whovever declares a Muslim to be a disbeleiver has himself disbelieved.” This is a reality in which there is no doubt. The well-known additional clarification of this hadeeth is found in some of the other narrations. That is, if it is that the one who has been declared a disbeliever is in fact a disbeliever, then he is correct. Otherwise, it goes back to him. This does not require any research because the hadeeth is very clear. However, I would like to add to it saying that in the case of someone who declares a Muslim to be an innovator, it is either that the labeled Muslim is in fact an innovator, or the one who made the declaration is himself an innovator. This is the reality which I had said to you earlier: that our young people are declaring our scholars to be innovators and they are the ones who themselves have fallen into innovation. However, they do not know; they do not intend to commit innovation. In fact, they fight innovation. The following saying of the past applies to them: “Awrada Sa’dun wa Sa’dun mushtamil, maa haakatha yaa S’adu, tooradul ibil (While sitting cross-legged, Sa’d let them take water; O Sa’d, that isn’t the way to water camels).” Because of that, we advise our youths to hold fast to acting according to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah within the bounds of their knowledge, and not to have the audacity to accuse others whose knowledge they cannot compare their knowledge to. Nor can they compare their understanding to these people, nor perhaps even their righteousness; that is, people like an-Nawawee and Haafith ibn Hajar al-‘Askalaanee. Who in the Muslim world today in anywhere near these two? Leave Sayyid Qutb, because he is a regular individual. We praise him for his efforts, his jihaad, but this does not in any way change the fact that he was really only a writer. He had literary skills, but he was not a scholar. So there is no surprise that a number of things would come from him which contradict the correct methodology. As for those who were mentioned along with him, like an-Nawawee and ibn Hajar, it is wrong and oppressive to refer to them as being among the people of innovation. I know that they were amongst the Ash‘arites, but they did not intend to contradict the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. It is only that they mistakenly thought two things regarding the ‘aqeedah which they had inherited from the Ash‘arites. The first is that Imaam al-Ash‘aree actually held that position, when in fact, that was only his early position because he recanted his statement. And secondly, they mistakenly thought it to be correct, when it is in fact incorrect.”
Further on he said, regarding Sayyid Qutb’s deviant statement of wahdatul wujood:
“Therefore, it is not suitable for us to imagine that Sayyid Qutb had fallen into wahdatil wujood (monism) as Ibn ‘Arabee, for example, had; that he, meaning Sayyid Qutb, intended it and his heart was set on it like Ibn ‘Arabee who misguided millions of Sufi Muslims. Perhaps it was only a left over of some Sufi thought which came to his mind or to his heart while he was a prisoner, and he had not developed complete knowledge about the issue. And he wrote that statement which I was the first to criticize.”
And on numerous occasions, where people came to him with, “So and so made such and such a (deviant) statement. What do you think, Shaykh?” His first response would be, “I don’t think So and so would say that! And IF he did say that, I don’t think he knew what he was saying. Did you ask him what he meant by that statement?” This was the way of the noble Shaykh, giving his Muslim brothers the benefit of the doubt and avoiding passing false judgments based on a few statements. And it is far different from what some of our brothers are currently involved in. And this is not based on five or even ten tapes I happened to hear, but Allaah is my witness, on a few hundred.


Regarding the statement in my book The Fundamentals of Tawheed (written some 18 years ago and first published 10 years ago), which implies that people should speak out against the rulers who rule by other than the Sharee’ah, as well as another (which was not pointed out to me by the brothers but by my wife) in Tafseer Soorah al-Hujuraat (written more than twenty-one years ago), which encourages plotting against Muslim governments not implementing Sharee’ah, I have abandoned such false beliefs long ago and unfortunately, was not aware that some remained in my old books. I openly retract those statements, and had someone bothered to inform me of them and advise me, I would have changed them immediately. They will be changed with the next publications inshaa’Allaah, and I will further retract these statements on my web page and state the correct view regarding the rulers, inshaa’Allaah.
I have never had a problem accepting a mistake once proof comes to the contrary and changing it. But did these brothers ever sit with me and sincerely advise me about these “many mistakes”? Did they ask to meet with me, which I would have done gladly, and say, ‘In such and such a book, you made such and such an erroneous statement. The following evidence is to the contrary’, etc.? That would have been much appreciated.
Furthermore, in my meeting with Shaykh ‘Alee Hasan and Shaykh Saleem, some brothers tried to bring to them an issue in one of my old books, and Shaykh ‘Alee told them that they cannot take a person’s ‘aqeedah from his old books, instead it should be taken from his recent books. So the brothers should not merely take a statement written in my oldest books and ignore all my explicit statements in my recent lectures and books wherein I speak out in no uncertain terms against making takfeer of Muslim rulers and others, speak out against revolt against rulers and all the takfeeree movements. In my book, Usool at-Tafseer, I spoke about the importance of accepting the Sahaabah’s understanding of the Qur’aan, and as one of my examples, I quoted the verse, “And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed is a kaafir.” Then followed it by Ibn ‘Abbaas’ statement, “It is a form of kufr less than real kufr.” Then I put in my footnote that the position of scholars is that when the ruler believes that man-made laws are better than or as good as the Sharee’ah, or that it is permissible to rule by them, then is a kaafir. Whereas if he applies man-made laws while believing that it is sinful to do so, then he is a major sinner but does not leave the fold of Islaam. I ended the footnote asking the reader to refer to at-Tah-theer min Fitnah at-Takfeer by Shaykh al-Albaanee, who, as I wrote, “provides copious documentation from the statements of classical and modern salafee scholars to support his position.” (p. 38) In my book Tafseer Soorah al-Mulk, which is complete and on the way to being published inshaa’Allaah, I included the entire section on the categories of kufr from Shaykh Khaalid al-‘Anbaree’s book The Fundamentals of Takfeer. And I again made clear statements there opposing takfeer and revolt against the rulers. And my position is and has been that of Shaykh al-Albaanee’s and the other scholars, the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa‘ah: that one cannot claim someone to be a kaafir due to a major sin he has committed, and that we cannot make takfeer on Muslim rulers if they do not rule by Sharee‘ah, for the ruler’s aqeedah as to whether or not it is permissible for him to rule by man-made laws or whether or not man-made laws are better, is something which only he and Allaah know the reality of. So we take him to be a Muslim, and the Prophet (pbuh) clearly forbade revolt against Muslim rulers in many ahaadeeth, and ordered that they be obeyed in other than disobedience to Allaah. Furthermore, Muslims should not publicly and openly speak out against the Muslim rulers and governments as it only creates fitnah and incites the masses of Muslims to act upon emotion and ignorance by creating chaos or plotting revolt against rulers. In addition, the only way for the Muslims to attain their honor and glory once again, and reach the level wherein the Muslim world can rule totally according to Sharee’ah, free of all forms of shirk, bid’ah, or oppression, is, as Shaykh al-Albaane spent his life teaching, by tasfiyah and tarbiyah. That is, that the deen be purified from all forms of shirk, bid’ah, hizbiyyah, blind-following, the use of inauthentic hadeeths, etc., and it be understood and practiced in the pristine form it was revealed in, according to the understanding of the righteous salaf, the Sahaabah primarily and the next two generations. Their way, in all affairs (aqeedah, methodology, fiqh, manners, understanding, etc.) is superior to all those who came after them. Then we must educate ourselves, families, then everyone else upon this purified religion.

There are my positions in black and white before anyone who reads this, so as not to attribute to me to an ‘aqeedah and minhaj that I am in fact innocent of.


The scholars have spoken out against the methodology of searching for people’s mistakes to try and broadcast them or hold something against them. The following are examples of some of these statements published in al-Huda and other internet sites:
Advices from Shaykh Muhammad Nassiruddeen Al –Albaanee:
“Listen my brother. I sincerely advise you and other youths like you, who stand upon a type of deviation –as it seems to us- and Allah (aw) knows best – do not waste your time in refuting each other, saying that such and such has this in him, and such and such has that in him. This is because, firstly: there is no knowledge at all in this, and secondly: this mannerism only breeds enmity and hatred in the hearts, and causes contempt and rancor to develop in the hearts. So it is upon you to seek knowledge. It is knowledge that will make clear to you the reality of the speech which is in praise of a particular person having many mistakes, and whether he is deserving of being labeled as an innovator.
Yet why do we wish to delve into such issues. Indeed I advise you not to delve into such issues. The reality is that we complain about this splitting which has occurred between those who ascribe themselves to the da’wah to the Book and the Sunnah. The greatest cause of this splitting, and Allah (aw) knows best, is the following of whims and desires and the evil dictates of one’s soul. It is not due to the presence of differences in thoughts and ideas. So this is my sincere advice.”
[Silsilatul Hudaa wan-Noor (784/1), dated the 1st of Rabi’al Awwal 1414H, (9-12-1993)]
Advices from Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez Bin Baaz:
“What has become common in this age, is that many of those who ascribe themselves to knowledge and calling to good, fall into belittling many of their brothers who are well known daa’ees, and speaking against the honor of the students of knowledge and the daa’ees. This is done sometimes secretly in their circles, sometimes on cassettes which are then circulated amongst the people, or sometimes publicly mentioned in their gatherings in the mosques. And this manner opposes the command of Allah (aw) and His Messenger (saaw) from a number of angles.
So I sincerely advise those brothers who have fallen into slandering and maligning the daa’ees, that they should repent to Allah (aw), for what they have written with their own hands, and what they have said with their own tongues; which may have been a cause for corrupting the hearts of some of the youths; filling their hearts with hatred and malice, and preoccupying them away from acquiring beneficial knowledge and calling to Allah (aw), because of being preoccupied with qeel and qaal (“It is said,” and “He said”, i.e. rumor mongering), and with speech about this person and that person, and with hunting for the mistakes of people, and burdening them with this. Likewise, I sincerely advise them that they should redress whatever they have done, and declare themselves free from the likes of those actions through writing or methods other than this. They should remove whatever may have entered the minds and thoughts of those who listened to them, and they should take to doing those fruitful actions that will draw them closer to Allah (aw), and which will be of benefit to the worshippers. They should beware of being hasty in pronouncing takfeer (declaring one a kaafir), tafseeq (declaring one a corrupt sinner), or tabdee‘ (declaring one an innovator) upon people, without the truth being explained, and without the proofs being established. The Prophet (saaw) said: “Whoseover says to his brother:’O unbeliever’ then it will return to one of them.” (Bukhaaree & Muslim) [Majmoo’ Fatawa wa Maqalat Mutanawwi’ah (7/311-314), abridged.]
Advices from Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih Al-‘Uthaymeen:
“It is essential for a student of knowledge to safeguard his time from being wasted. And time wasting occurs in a number of ways:
Firstly: That one leaves committing to memory and revising what one has read.
Secondly: That one sits with his friends and indulges in vain and idle talk which contains no benefit.
Thirdly, and this is the most harmful of them upon a student of knowledge: That he has no concern except pursuing people’s statements with “It is said that” and “he said that” (maa qeela wa maa qaala) and with what has occurred and what is currently taking place regarding an issue that is of no concern to him.
And there is no doubt that this is from a weakness of [his] Islaam, since the Prophet (saaw) said: (Tirmithee).
Busying oneself with qeela and qaala and excessive questioning are time-wasters. And it is, in reality, a disease which, when it comes into a man – we ask Allah for well-being- it becomes his greatest concern. Due to this, he may even sometimes show enmity (‘adaa) to one who does not deserve enmity, or show alliance (walaa) to one who does not deserve alliance, because of concerning himself with these issues which pre-occupy him away from knowledge, under the pretext of “championing the truth”, whilst this is not the case! Rather, this is part of pre-occupying oneself with an issue that does not concern him.
If, however, a report comes to you without you having pursued or sought it, then everyone who receives the news should not busy themselves with it, nor should they make it their greatest concern. This is because this (practice) pre-occupies the student of knowledge, corrupts his affair, and opens up for the Ummah the door of bigoted partisanship (hizbiyyah) which then splits the Ummah.” [Kitaabul ‘Ilm (204-205)]
Advices from Shaykh ‘Abdullaah Al-Ghunaymaan:
“Amongst the consequences of the actions of these individuals is that they have confused the thoughts of many of the youth. Thus, as a result, some youths have strayed from the path of guidance and have begun to follow the path drawn up for them by those who criticize others, and who have stood in the path of da’wah and blocked the path of Allah. As a result of those individuals who criticize others, some of the youth now sense a great gap between them and the scholars, and now harbor great misgivings, causing them to stray from the scholars.
Some have begun to categorize people according to what he hears from these people, saying: so and so is from the Ikhwaan, because he talks, visits, or sits with a person from the Ikhwaan; or that such and such a person is from the Suroorees; or such and such is from the profiteers (i.e. those who wish to please everybody, even at the expense of the truth), etc. The amazing thing is that these people imagine that by doing so, they are applying the methodology of al-jarh wat-ta’deel.

(Further on the tape)

However, they have adopted in this action, ignorant leaders who are misguided and who misguide others. Thus, it is upon the Muslim to fear Allah (aw) regarding himself and those poor souls who are not even a quarter, or a tenth of the learned.
There occurs in the authentic hadeeth: [Bukharee (2942)].
Likewise, whosoever misguides even a single person, will bear a great burden; as Allah (aw) said, after mentioning the story of one of the Aadam’s children killing his brother: <> (Al Maa’dah 5:32)
Thus, to send someone astray in his religion is far greater than killing him. So statements regarding matters of religion must be stated along with their proofs from either Allah’s Book, or the Sunnah of His Messenger (saaw), and that when making such statements one should seek by that the Face of Allah Alone, and also one should ascertain if the harm resulting from such speech is not greater than the benefit, or that one’s intention is not due to envy of a particular individual, or due to the following of one’s desires.
[Al Hawaa wa Atharuhu fil Khilaaf (33-34)]


As regards my statement concerning pictures, Abu Khadeejah is correct that Sh Uthaymeen considered photographs haraam, though he did not consider the act of making photographs with an instamatic camera included under the forbidden forms of picture making mentioned in the hadeeths. He did however consider the action haraam for other than necessity because the means to a forbidden thing is haraam. I personally did consider the taking of photos permissible in the past as the evidence for its prohibition was not clear to me. However, I now hold that it is prohibited based on the opinion of the majority of the Salafee scholars of our time.
CONCLUSION: And as I stated in the beginning, this is the first and last response I intend to write, and our brothers can fight a one-sided battle if they so choose. I chose to respond due to the urging of many people who stressed to me that my silence was being taken as acceptance of Aboo Khadeejah’s attack as being fully based on truth. In closing, I pray Allaah softens the hearts and guides all of us and unites the hearts of those dedicated to spreading the Salafee Da’wah.