EXPOSING THE LIES AND DISTORTIONS OF ROSHEED MUSTOPHA AL-KHOORIJEE, THE TREES AND BIRDS PROFESSOR (1)

All perfect praise is for Allaah alone. We beseech His peace and blessings upon Muhammad (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam).
Rosheed Mustopha, popularly known as Aboo Ibeji, the next in command to the Khoorijee, Muhammad ‘Aliyy Jabata, the ignoramus who calls to the principle of ‘every bid’ah is a major kufr’ in Nigeria, said, “Shaykh Albaanee also says in his book titled Fataawa Albaanee, ‘this bid’ah which they refer to as mufassiqoh, if a person insists on it after explanation, this person is like the one who doesn’t belief that Allaah rose above his creation. Shaykh Albaanee said according to him, there is no difference between kufr and bid’ah. [Time: 12:43-13:16]

First of all, the unwise ratiocination of Jabata and his students amazes me a lot so much so that I would sometimes think they have been charmed. How can you quote the statements of a person who stands firm on opinion ‘A’ in support of opinion ‘B’? Isn’t that illogical? The only logical thing you could do is to mention those ‘scholars’ of yours that ruled every bid’ah as a major kufr, their evidences, and their books with appropriate references. This is justice. Failure to do this (which you won’t be able to do till eternity) is a proof that you’re indeed innovators and liars.

Secondly, why did you fail to read and explain the whole conversation if you’re indeed truthful? You (your boss, and all other members of your cult) are fond of quoting the scholars out of context in order to establish your falsehood. You quoted the two statements above from a lengthy discussion as if the Shaykh used the statements to establish your faulty creed. Haba! Liar! Before exposing your lies, distortions, ‘tatment’, and ‘grammer’, I will relate the whole conversation.

Questioner: Some say that whoever commits a bid’ah mukaffiroh leaves the circle of ahlus sunnoh wal jamaa’ah, and one who commits a bid’ah mufassiqoh does not leave the circle of Muslims, even if evidence is brought to him and the person continued to do it. Would such a person be still considered (to be from) the people of ahlus sunnoh in such a case?

Shaykh Noosir: What is bid’ah mukaffiroh and bid’ah ghoyr mukaffiroh?

Questioner: The bid’ah mukaffiroh is where the person makes a statement which is a statement of kufr (disbelief), like declaring that the Lord, Allaah, is not above His throne, and the statements similar to that. And the mufassiqoh is like the innovations in acts of worship, like the mowlid, for example.

Shaykh Noosir: This is a statement which is not correct. This statement is a product of ‘ilmul kalaam. The distinction made between innovations in al-usool (fundamental principles) and innovations in al-furoo’ (secondary principles), or the bid’ah in ahkaam (laws) and bid’ah in ‘ibaadaat (acts of worship), this distinction is itself innovation. What if an individual approached one of the Prophet’s sunnoh like the sunnoh of fajr, and he made it four units. How would this innovation be classified? A mufasiqoh innovation or a mukaffiroh innovation, if he made the sunnoh four and insisted on continuing to do it?

Questioner: According to their explanation, it would be classified as a mufassiqoh innovation.

Shaykh Noosir: That is a nonsensical statement. Among the things which the khalaf, the later generation, have inherited from the salaf and by the term salaf here I intend a different meaning than the technical meaning which is understood amongst us, is the distinction between errors in al-furoo’ and errors in al-usool. An error in secondary principles is forgivable, whereas an error in primary principles is unforgivable. The hadeeth whose authenticity is well known; “If a judge makes a ruling and strives to find the truth and is correct, he gets two rewards. And if he makes a mistake, he gets one reward”, that is (supposedly) in the secondary principles. As for the fundamental principles, they are not excusable. That distinction has no foundation, neither in the Qur’aan nor in the sunnoh nor among the statements of the righteous predecessors. What exists in the statement of the righteous predecessors, is a strong warning against innovation in general, whether it be in ‘aqeedah or in ‘ibaadah.

I mentioned earlier the reality that whoever declares a Muslim to be a disbeliever, has himself disbelieved. And I added to it that whoever declares a Muslim to be an innovator (is himself an innovator) , etc. because in reality, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KUFR AND BID’AH. If a Muslim began an innovation and the innovative reality of it was made clear to him, but he insists on doing it, as in the example which I mentioned earlier, it would be like the one who denies that Allaah rose above His creation or denies that the Qur’aan is from His speech, etc. There is no difference between this or that at all, neither negatively nor positively. Positively, we would say that he has disbelieved, based on the condition that we mentioned earlier, that evidence was made clear to him. And the other has disbelieved after evidence has been brought to him. Negatively speaking, there’s no declaration of disbelief or apostasy in either case, neither the first nor the second, only with the existence of the condition which was mentioned.

I will go back to the statement that the Mu’tazilites and the Khoorijtes coincide in some of the issues in which they went astray, and they disagree on some. For example, the Khoorijites agree with the Mu’tazilites on the position that the Qur’aan is created. The ideas coincide. And as I mentioned before, the scholars of hadeeth did not declare the Khowaarij to be disbelievers. Then how do we combine the ideas in our mind, that one who denies a principle of belief is a disbeliever, and one who makes an innovation in ‘ibaadah is a faasiq (sinner); and we have the leaders in the science of the narration of hadeeth narrating from the Mu’tazilites and the Khoorijites, in spite of the fact that they contradict the authentic ‘aqeedah in a number of issues. Those who say that Allaah’s speech is created will also deny seeing Allaah in the next life. That denial along with the previous denial makes our previous definition applicable to them. It is disbelief. But not everyone who falls into an act of disbelief has become a disbeliever. How do we rationalize the fact that the leaders of hadeeth scholars of the salaf, like Ibn Taymeeyah and Ibn al-Qoyyim, ruled that the Khoorijites and Mu’tazilites were astray, without any doubt, but they do not refer to them as being disbelievers, apostates from their religion? Because they lay down the principle of the possibility that the issue was confused to them firstly; and that the evidence was not brought against them, secondly.

Let us return to the basics of our original subject that those people were innovators. But we do not know if they intended or was evidence of their error brought to them, etc. and that is the methodology of the scholars. They rule that the Mu’tazilites were astray, and the Khoorijites were astray, and the Ash’arites were astray in a number of issues, but they do not declare them to be disbelievers. They do not expel them from the circle of Islaam based on the possibility which was mentioned earlier. They go back to two issues. I’ll mention them again. The first is that they did not intend an innovation and contradiction. Secondly, we do not know whether the evidence, proof of their error, was brought to them in a convincing way or not. Therefore, their judgement is left to Allaah, and for us is the outer judgement with regards to them, which is that they are Muslims, and they died believing in Islaam, and they were buried in the graveyards of the Muslims. Therefore, they are Muslims. Thus, the distinction made between al-bid’ah al-mukaffiroh and al-bid’ah mufassiqoh mentioned, firstly, it is a linguistic, technical difference which is a product of the scholars of philosophy. And secondly, there is no evidence to support it at all.

Now I’d like to close the discussion on this issue with a hadeeth which will point you to what I mentioned earlier, that not everyone who does an act of disbelief, or belief has become confused to him, becomes a disbeliever. I mean by that a hadeeth in Soheeh Bukhooree narrated by two great companions of the Prophet, Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree and Huthayfaa Ibn al-Yamaan. They said that Allaah’s Messenger said, “There was a man among those who were before you who was on his deathbed and he gathered his children around him. He said to them, “What kind of father was I to you?” They replied, “The best of fathers.” He said, “I have never done a single good deed. So when I die, burn me, crush my body, and scatter the resulting ashes on a windy day.” His sons did so, but Allaah gathered his particles and asked him, “What made you do so?” He replied, “Fear of You.” So Allaah forgave him. There’s a question: did this man disbelieve by his statement “if Allaah were able to get hold of me” or did he not disbelieve? He disbelieved, but Allaah forgave him. And we know from the Noble Qur’aan that Allaah will not forgive anyone who associates partners to Him, and He forgives anything less than that for whomsoever he wishes. How do we understand this hadeeth in light of the obvious meaning of the Qur’aan? That He does not forgive one who assigns Him partners intentionally. What is your opinion of that condition? It is correct, but is it in the verse? No, it isn’t. Where did we get it from? This is the sharee’ah. It is not taken from a single hadeeth or from a single verse, but is taken from a combination of all that is relevant to the issue. Consequently, it is not only in fiqh that it is necessary to combine all of the relevant texts until we know the abrogating and the abrogated text, and the general from the specific, and the unconditional from the conditional, etc. In fact, this is much more needed in the case of ‘aqeedah. When the scholars explained the verse “Verily, Allaah will not forgive anyone who assigns partners to Him”, they do not get these details usually, because the issue to them is quite clear, it does not require these kinds of details. But when problems and confused issues arise at this time, the scholar is required to explain the knowledge that he has. So this man who made a will (i.e. in the above mentioned hadeeth) did not imagine that it contained incomparable wrong and misguidance. He sought to have himself burned in order to hide from his Lord, while Allaah said: “He puts forth for us a parable, and forgets his own creation. He says: ‘Who will give life to these bones when they have rotted away and become dust?’ Say: ‘He who created them the first time will give life to them. And He is all-Knowing about every creation’.” And after that, our Lord forgave him. Why? Because disbelief had not entered into the heart of that individual. It is only that he imagined his sins before Allaah and his fear of Him and that if Allaah reached him, he would give him a very severe punishment. This fear and humility blinded him from the correct ‘aqeedah, and so he made that will. And the hadeeth is clear in the way in which He told him, “Get up because I have forgiven you.”

Therefore, it is not suitable for us to imagine that Sayyid Qutb had fallen into wahdatil wujood (monism) as Ibn ‘Arobee, for example, had; that he, meaning Sayyid Qutb, intended it and his heart was set on it like Ibn ‘Arobee who misguided millions of Sufi Muslims, etc. 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. We cannot rule that he was a disbeliever because we do not know that disbelief had become set in his heart or that the evidence of the error of his writing or thought was brought to him, especially while he was in his prison. I do not think that was the case. Because of that we do not link the fact that a Muslim may do an act of disbelief with him being a disbeliever. We do not link those two issues together. That is first and foremost. And warning against this have been repeated. And certainly, we do not distinguish between innovations in ‘aqeedah and innovations in acts of worship. Both of them are either misguidance or they are disbelief. Perhaps this answer is sufficient, O Aboo ‘Abdur-Rahmoon.

The explanation comes next!

To be continued…

I beseech Allaah to show us the truth as being the truth and to grant us its following, and to show us misguidance as misguidance and to make it easy for us to abstain from it.

May prayers and peace be upon Muhammad (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam), his respected households and companions, and on the generality of the Muslims till the end of time.

Aboo Aaishah Al Odeomeey

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s