​MUHAMMAD BN ‘ALIYY JABATA AL-KHOORIJEE IS DO’EEF MATROOK (WEAK, REJECTED); AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THE STUDENTS OF THE STRAYED MAN SPREADING HIS NARRATIONS REGARDING HIS PURPORTED VISIT WITH SHAYKH YAHYA AL-HAJOOREE AND SHAYKH ‘ABDUL-HAMEED AL-HAJOOREE AZ-ZA’AKAREE

All perfect praise is for Allaah alone. We beseech His peace and blessing upon Muhammad (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

Unquestionably, common sense (or what is now referred to as a superpower rare sense) knows that the statements of a habitual liar are not considered important except if it is known that he has changed his lifestyle. Muhammad bn ‘Aliyy Jabata al-Khoorijee is undoubtedly a loathsome liar known for spreading his lies and innovations, and more pathetically, attributing them to the creed and methodology of the pious predecessors. For this reason no matter how his students are titillated by his lies, we will continue to draw their attention to the truth about this man.

Firstly, Allaah draws our attention to being truthful and to investigating narrations before accepting them hook, line and sinker. Allaah says (what could be interpreted as), “O you who have believed, fear Allaah and be with those who are true (in words and deeds).” [Soorah at-Tawbah (9):119] He (subhaanohu wa ta’ala) also says (what could be interpreted as), “O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. [Soorah al-Hujuroot (49):6] Also, it is reported from ‘Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ood (rodiyaLloohu ‘anhu) that the Prophet said, “You must be truthful, for truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man will keep speaking the truth and striving to speak the truth until he will be recorded with Allaah as a speaker of truth. Beware of telling lies, for lying leads to immorality and immorality leads to Hellfire. A man will keep telling lies and striving to tell lies until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” [Saheeh Muslim]

From the aforementioned verses and hadeeth, the obligation of investigating the narrations of a habitual liar is very clear. Imaam Ibn Kathir said in explanation of the verse of Sooratul Hujuroot ealier mentioned, “Allaah ordered investigating the news that sinners and the wicked bring, (so as to) be sure of its genuineness; else, if the sinner’s word is taken for concession and a decision is based on it, regardless of whether the information is true or not, the authorities will be taking the lead of the sinners. Allaah forbade taking the path of the corrupted and sinners. This is why groups of the scholars of hadeeth refuse to accept narrations from narrators whose trustworthiness is unknown, for they might be from amongst the wicked people, in reality.” Therefore, it is incumbent on us to know if Muhammad bn ‘Aliyy Jabata al-Khoorijee is trustworthy.

I frankly would advise any serious-minded individual who loves the truth to desist from accepting his narration because he is a confirmed habitual liar. Shaykh Najeem bn Sulaymaan said, “He is bold on falsehood. His tongue is always drawn out. His speeches are unmarketable, rejected even false. He never smelt the Da’wah Salafiyyah let alone tasting it. Allah’s aid is sought. [Translated from Arabic by Aboo Aamir] I have proved this point in many of my write-ups. However, I will list some of his lies here with references for the one who loves the truth and is ready to accept it.

Funnily enough, Muhammad ‘Aliyy Jabata said in one of his recent tapes, “I don’t know how to tell lies.” [His audio clip titled, “Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Aliyy Jabata meets Shaykh Yahya ibn Aliyy al-Hajooree and Shaykh AbdulHameed al-Hajooree after Itikaf of Ramadan 1438/2017; Time: 06:17 to 06:18]

Now let us mention some of his lies so as to know whether he truly knows how to tell lies or he is still learning how to tell lies. From his blatant lies are;

One; he said, “We do not give admonitions during Romodoon; we do so following the command of the Prophet sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam. [One of his Radio Programs; Time: 11 minutes 45 seconds to 11 minutes 52 seconds] During the same radio program he said, “We have said that there is no evidence for giving admonitions during Romodoon. For this reason the hadeeth states that Jibreel used to come to the Prophet to teach him the Qur’aan without interpreting it (is the evidence). So where did we see Morning Tafseer, afternoon Tafseer, (and) night Tafseer? I hope you understand. Those who do not organize Tafseer before (Romodoon) would come out to stage their night Tafseer. There is nothing like this…We have stopped our Tafseer, whether it be our Radio Program (or not), we have stopped it. The one we used to organize at Jabata have been cancelled…Don’t be annoyed. In shaa Allaah, we shall meet after Romodoon.” [Time: 21 minutes 23 seconds to 22 minutes 06 seconds]

The lie here is very clear in his comment, “We do so following the command of the prophet sollalloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam”. Ask him to mention a narration, whether authentic or weak, wherein the Prophet made such command. Obdurate liar!

Two; he said, “Sunnah is the person who excommunicates anyone guilty of shirk and bid’ah after the conditions are established. By Allaah, it is the methodology of Sunnah. It is the methodology of the pious predecessors. If one fails to do that (that is, fails to excommunicate anyone guilty of shirk or kufr) while he believes and practices every other aspect of Sunnah completely, the person is not a Sunnah.” [His audio clip titled ‘Rejoinder to Sarumi’ Time 28:55-29:16]

The first nonsense here is that he is referring to a person as Sunnah instead of a Sunni. This is one of the errors he commits at all times, funnily enough, majority of his students have followed suit; I will move on because I only wish to concentrate on his lies here. The lie in this statement is very clear. He swore by Allaah that a Sunni is a person who excommunicates anyone guilty of Shirk and bid’ah after the conditions have been established. He meant by this that there is no difference between the one guilty of bid’ah mufassiqoh, bid’ah mukaffiroh, shirk al-asghor and shirk al-akbar as to excommunicating them after the conditions. Therefore, they’re all equal in judgment. Without an iota of doubt, this is one of the greatest lies of all time. We do not know of any evidence for these claims in the Qur’aan and Sunnah. We do not know of any book of knowledge written by the scholars, both past and present, wherein they established that people who fall into shirk al-asghor and bid’ah mufassiqoh must be excommunicated. He has no predecessor upon this statement.

In addition to the evidences we have earlier mentioned and explained to prove that every bid’ah is not a major kufr and that the shirk al-asghor does not take its doer out of the fold of Islaam, the following are statements of ten scholars refuting this blatant lie of Muhammad ‘Aliyy Jabata al-Khoorijee.

Shaykh ‘Abdussalaam bn Saalim bn Rajaa as-Suhaymee: The people of bid’ah are not of the same level; there are from them, those that we will make takfeer upon, like the one who does an act (of kufr) or says statements of kufr; and also before we can declare such person as a kaafir, we have to establish the conditions and impediments; and there are from them, those that we will not declare as kuffar because they haven’t done acts of kufr or say statements of kufr. [FIKRU TTAKFEER QODEEMON WAHADEETHAN WATABRIATU ITTIBAA’I MADHAABU SSALAAF MINOL GHULOOWWI WAL FIKRIL MUNHARI PAGE 31]

Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah: There is a statement (which claims) that we can’t declare anyone who faces the qiblah as a disbeliever; they (the proponents of this statement) believe that we can’t excommunicate anyone from those who face the qiblah. The second statement; they say all those who are guilty of bid’ah must be made takfeer upon; they believe that all the doers of innovations are disbelievers and they have left (the fold of) Islaam. Both statements (which we’ve mentioned) contradict the truth; they contradict the evidences of the Sharee’ah. Ibn Taymiyyah has explained that it is an error for anyone who places these statements upon the scholars. He (Ibn Taymiyyah) said the correct thing is that we differentiate between the people of innovation and this is the truth which comes from the Salaf. [MAJMOO AL-FATAAWAA VOLUME 7, PAGE 337-340, VOLUME 3, PAGE 352-354, VOLUME 12, 497-498, SHARHU ‘AQEEDATU TAHAWIYYAH 338-340…]

Shaykh Soolih al-Fawzaan (hafidhohuLlaah) said, “There are many differences between shirk al-asghor and shirk al-akbar. (One) shirk al-akbar takes one out of the fold of Islaam while shirk al-asghor does not take one out of the fold of Islaam. Shirk al-asghor is a form of the major sins. It leads to shirk al-akbar. (Two) shirk al-akbar renders all good deeds void while shirk al-asghor, for example showing off (and) doing deeds in order to be heard, only renders void, the acts it is involved in; (while) other good deeds (which are in line with the Qur’aan and Sunnah) will not be rendered void. (Three) shirk al-akbar makes one’s blood lawful for spilling and one’s properties lawful for taking, unlike shirk al-asghor that doesn’t make one’s blood and property lawful because the one who does it have not left the fold of Islaam. [SHARH NOWAAQIDUL ISLAAM, PAGE 50]

Shaykh Saleem bn ‘Eid al-Hilaalee (hafidhohuLlaah) said, “Anyone who calls to innovation is worthy of being punished in this life in order to secure the garden of the Sharee’ah which doesn’t deserve to be stained, and in order to restrict his evils from the people. The least form of punishment is to boycott him; he shouldn’t be given a post in the religion, and knowledge shouldn’t be taken from him, and he won’t be asked questions regarding any issue of the religion; his testimony won’t be accepted. Due to these (statements), there is a consensus amongst the scholars, from the scholars of hadeeth, the scholars of fiqh, and the scholars of usool that, as for an innovator who becomes a kaafir with his innovation, we won’t take narrations from him with the consensus (of the previously mentioned scholars), but as for the innovator who does not become a kaafir (with his innovation), there is a difference of opinion (as to accepting his testimonies or not), except for the one who finds ease in lying and uses it to support his school of thought or those who follow his school of thought. Ash-Shaafi’i said, “I will take the narration of the people of desire except the khottoobiyyah because they permit false testimonies in order to shield those who support them.” [AL BID’AH WA ATHARUHA AS-SAYYI’ FIL-UMMAH PAGE 132]

Shaykh ‘Amroo ‘Abdulmun’im Saleem: As for the one whom we describe with bid’ah mufassiqoh; his ruling is like the ruling of the one who falls into the major sins. His ‘eeman is still intact with respect to what he does which are in line with the Sunnah. For these innovators (who we describe with bid’ah mufassiqoh), there is no ahlus sunnah who says one won’t seek forgiveness for them, pray for them, and pray on them if they die. Their ruling is with Allaah in the hereafter; if He wishes he may punish them and if He wishes He may forgive them. No one must say that they are inhabitants of paradise or inhabitants of hellfire. Even if one dies upon tawheed without (obvious) sins, we have no right to say he is an inhabitant of jannah or inhabitant of jahannam. This is well established in the ‘aqeedah of the salaf and in the statements of (all) the scholars of Sunnah. [USOOLU LLATI BA’ADA GHULAATU FEE MODHABAHUM FEE TABDEE’ PAGE 98]

Ash-Shaykh Muqbil (rohimohuLlaah) and other scholars of Sunnah used to say that bid’ah is divided into mukaffiroh and mufassiqoh. These explanations are very clear in their books and tapes regarding the issue of bid’ah. Shaykh Muqbil and other scholars of Sunnah upon Da’awah salafiyyah were never confused about it. This is a mistake. May Allaah guide him (Muhammad Jaahil Jabata)! This a (great) harm upon Da’awah….[Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree answering a question regarding the creed of Jabata]

Shaykh Yahya al-Hajooree: There is no ahlus Sunnah who believes that the bid’ah of the mur’jiah is mukaffiroh let alone calling them kuffar, despite their clear bid’ah. We do not know of anyone from the people of sunnah who labeled them as kuffar. There are many innovations that do not take one out of the pale of Islaam. Shaykhul Islaam categorically mentioned that he doesn’t know of anyone (from the ahlus sunnah) who declared the Zaydiyyah as kuffar; (this is) because they do get to the level of the extremism of the kuffar. There is no doubt that there are bid’ah mukaffiroh and bid’ah mufassiqoh. This is what the ahlus sunnah are upon. In shaa Allaah, (we hope) this brother changes this (error based) statement. What I mean by this is that; he should tread the path which the ahlus sunnah are upon. He should believe that there is bid’ah mukaffiroh and bid’ah mufassiqoh; he should (also) believe that there are those who become kuffar with their innovation while there are those who do not become kuffar with their innovation. This is the way of the Salaf.

Shaykh Ibn al-‘Uthaymeen: In both cases, we have to call these people who claim to be Muslims, but who commit acts of bid’ah which may constitute kufr or may be less than that to the truth, by explaining the truth without being hostile or condemning what they are doing. But once we know that they are too arrogant to accept the truth [for Allaah says in Soorah al-An’aam (6):108 ‘And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allaah, lest they insult Allaah wrongfully without knowledge.’] if we found out that they are stubborn and arrogant, then we should point out their falsehood, because then pointing out their falsehood becomes obligatory upon us. With regard to boycotting them, that depends upon the bid’ah. If it is a bid’ah which constitutes kufr, then it is obligatory to boycott the person who does it. If it is of a lesser degree than that, then it is essential to examine the situation further. If something may be achieved by boycotting the person, then we do it; if no purpose will be served by it, or if it will only make him more disobedient and arrogant, then we should avoid doing that, because whatever serves no purpose, it is better not to do it. And also, in principle it is forbidden to boycott a believer, because the Prophet (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘It is not permissible for a man to forsake (not to speak to) his brother for more than three (days).’” [MAJMOO’ FATAAWA IBN ‘UTHAYMEEN, VOL. 2, PAGE 293]

IMAAM ASH-SHAATIBEE: “There are from innovations, the ones that are ma’asiyah, but there is no consensus on them as to whether they are ma’asiyah or kufr like the bid’ah of the Khowaarij, Qodariyyah, Murji’ah and other deviant sects. There are from innovations, the ones that are ma’asiyah (and) there is consensus on them that they are not kufr, like the bid’ah of celibacy, fasting while standing in the sun, (and) castration. So what is known is that these innovated practices are not upon the same level therefore it is not correct to say that they are upon the same level such as saying they are only disapproved or they are only prohibited.” [AL-I’TISOOM 382-383]

SHAYKH ‘ABDILLAAH AL-BUKHOOREE: The statement affirming that there is no difference between innovations is an error. What I am saying is that if one says there is no bid’ah which can make one become a kaafir or that every innovations makes one become a kaafir; this is a (great) error. This statement contradicts the evidences of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and the way of the Salaf from the first Salafs till now. This statement is an innovation. [SHAYKH ‘ABDILLAAH AL-BUKHOOREE answering a question regarding the creed of Jabata]

Three; he said, “Every bid’ah is disbelief; that is the statement of the Prophet.” [His tape titled ‘difference between Bid’ah and Ma’asiyah’; Time: 1 hour 16 minutes 38 seconds to 1 hour 16 minutes 40 seconds]

This is a blatant lie. The Prophet never said every bid’ah is disbelief. Jaabir bn ‘Abdillaah (rodiyaLoohu ‘anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allaah (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “…The best of speech is the Book of Allaah, and the best of guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam). And the most evil of affairs are the innovations (in the religion); and every innovation is misguidance” [Soheeh Muslim 867a] Irbaad bn Saariyah (rodiyaLloohu ‘anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allaah said, “…Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation and every innovation is misguidance”. [Sunoon Abee Dawood 4607] Jaabir bn ‘Abdillaah (rodiyaLoohu ‘anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allaah said, “…The worst of affairs (in our religion) are the newly invented things; every newly invented thing is an innovation and every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire…” [Sunan an-Nosaa’i]

Four; he said, “He (Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee) said we must not refer to the ‘dolaala’ (misguidance) in the hadeeth, “Every innovation is misguidance” as a sin. Ibn Taymiyyah also said in Sirootul Mustaqeem that the dolaala (misguidance, in the aforementioned hadeeth) should not be regarded as a sin. Now, mention one scholar who said the dolaala (misguidance) should not be ruled as kufr; I give you the assignment, find it if it is available… [His tape titled ‘difference between Bid’ah and Ma’asiyah’; Time: 1 hour 16 minutes to 1 hour 16 minutes 15 seconds]

Firstly, there is nowhere in the entire book “Al bid’ah wa atharuha as-sayyi’ fil-ummah” where Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaale mentioned that the ‘dolaala (misguidance)’ in the aforementioned hadeeth should not be interpreted as a sin. What he mentioned was that the entire statement, “kullu bid’aatin dolaala (every innovation is misguidance)” should not be placed side by side sins like theft, usury, fornication (and the likes) for comparison. Simply put, he meant that those sins should be not regarded as bid’ah. Secondly, the book of Ibn Taymiyyah he referred to is Iqtidoo’ as-sirootul mustaqeem li mukhoolafah ashaab al-jaheem not Sirootul Mustaqeem. Thirdly, there is nowhere it is mentioned in Iqtidoo’ as-sirootul mustaqeem li mukhoolafah ashaab al-jaheem that Ibn Taymiyyah said something of such; another blatant lie. Fourthly, he asked us to mention one scholar who holds that the dolaala ‘misguidance’ in that hadeeth should not be ruled as kufr (disbelief). It is worth mentioning that the scholars of Islaam who mentioned that hadeeth expounded in details that the misguidance in that hadeeth does not have one ruling of a major disbelief. They all hold that bid’ah is categorized into that which constitutes a major disbelief and that which is lesser. Their statements have been mentioned above when exposing his second lie. We have helped him solve his assignment; we now give him the assignment of helping us mention the statement of one scholar who explicitly states that every innovation (in the religion) is a major disbelief.

Five; he said, “Truly, fitnah happens (a lot) in the Arabian Peninsula, so when fitnah happens, they (the scholars) used to do that (i.e. change the truth). Do you get it? [His audio clip titled, ‘Misguidance of the one that called Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee concerning division of bidah’; Time: 15 minutes 21 seconds to 15 minutes 30 seconds]

Here, he claimed that Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee and other scholars of Sunnah used to change the truth whenever they see fitnah. Laa hawla wala quwwata illa biLlaah! This is one of the most grievous lies of all time. How can a sane individual say this kind of statement about those whom Allaah sent to guide the Ummah? Indeed knowledge is being taken away by the death of the scholars! We ask Allaah to give him what he deserves!

Six; he said, “I noticed that he (Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee) had a problem (with the other scholars) because of his friend known as Halabee. He is a friend of that Halabee and both of them are students of Shaykh al-Albaanee. That Halabee is now astray; I don’t beseech Allaah’s mercy on him (whenever his name is mentioned). He is astray. Before he became astray, he used to team up (with al-Hilaalee) to write books, but I noticed that he (Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee) had a problem with the scholars because they made tabdee of his friend. So he was reluctant to make tabdee on his friend, and (for that reason), they (the scholars that made tabdee on al-Halabee) wanted to make tabdee on him too because they don’t care, but it did not later happen. [His tape titled, ‘Misguidance of the one that called Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee concerning division of bidah’] Simply ask him to mention where he read or heard these statements, apart from the fact that they wrote book(s) together. Unrepentant liar!

Seven; he said, “In these two editions, he (Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee) did not categorize bid’ah (and this is clear to) anyone who can read Arabic. [His tape titled, ‘Misguidance of the one that called Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee concerning division of bidah’]

Firstly, are there really two editions of the book, ‘Al bid’ah wa atharuha as-sayyi’ fil-ummah’? The answer is no. The book he referred to as a second edition “Al bid’ah wa atharuha as-sayyi’ fil-ummah, of Al-Maktabah Al-Islaamiyyah in Jordan; no address!” is a pirated copy. This is not his first time of presenting the books of people who are Majhool (unknown) before his gullible and ignoramus listeners. Therefore, this is the first lie (whether it is deliberate or based on ignorance). Secondly, the lie he attributed to the Shaykh that he didn’t categorize bid’ah have been exposed from the same book. (Refer to the explanation under his second lie). Thirdly, we have a tape of the Shaykh where he clearly debunks the lie. You may request for it for confirmation. Fourthly, his statement ‘(and this is clear to) anyone who can read Arabic’ is hilarious. Really! Listen to the Khutbatul Hajjah (the sermon for necessities) with which he commences his discusses to confirm if he can really read Arabic. I have to move on as this is not the time to concentrate on his recitation and translation errors. Muhaddith; my foot!

Eight; he said regarding Dr Sharof Gbadebo Rooji, “I spared him because he does not bow to greet, but there are some things he used to do that have been exposed to me. There are some things he used to do that I initially wanted to discuss with him. This is because there are certain issues that require admonition perhaps he may understand, before making tabdee (on him), for example; delivering lecture during Nikaah and ‘aqeeqoh. Truly, he is guilty of all these. I was told that there is a rich man living beside his house; he went there to anchor the rich man’s Nikaah just as the people of innovation used to do. After the program, he took all the money gathered with him, and the people of innovation (present) became angry. [His tape titled, ‘Roddu on Dr AbdurRazzaaq Abdulmajeed Alaro 9, Dr Sharaf Gbadebo Raji; Time: 59 minutes 02 seconds to 59 minutes 49 seconds]

Firstly, from the attributes of the Khowaarij is that they will set out (to fight) against the best group amongst people.” [Al-Bukhooree (Hadeeth 6933)] As such, we are not surprised that he is attacking this Shaykh with blatant lies. This is the same way he has been attributing lies to many of those who disagree with him on issues. Many of his former students can testify to this. Secondly, where is it mentioned in the Qur’aan or Sunnah that it is forbidden to give admonitions or advise the Muslims in such gathering? Thirdly, even if this Shaykh used to give admonitions in such gathering, we are sure that he has changed that view long ago. This is because in one of his 2014 tapes, this Shaykh was asked,

“Questioner: Is it permissible to invite a scholar during ‘aqeeqoh so that the people may derive benefits from his lecture?”

His response, “Dr Sharof: What benefit do they want to derive? A’int they contented with the admonitions they listen to everyday? In addition, you invited (the) people to dine with you; is it an invitation for a lecture? How does Waleemah become metamorphosed to Muhaadoroh? Are they similar? The one who wants to listen to a lecture should go to where such is held. This could even make some people say, “the day I did my waleemah, the discussion was lengthy while it was light during yours because of ‘so and so’”. Iro lasan! May Allaah look after our children!” [His tape, “Zaadul Ma’aad Faslun-Fil-Aqeeqah; Date: 21/8/2014 Time: 1 hour 7 minutes 50 seconds to 1 hour 8 minutes 38 seconds] Fourthly, what he narrated regarding a rich man and the Shaykh is a blatant lie. Simply ask him to produce his evidences for these lies if he is indeed truthful. May Allaah give him what he deserves! Obdurate liar!

Nine; he said regarding Dr Sharof Gbadebo Rooji, “His statements do not have evidence; that’s his problem. And then, he is a Madhaabiyyah. He likes saying the Shaafi’iyyah (says), the Hanaabila (says), the ‘so and so’, that is what he concentrates on. He is not concerned about the evidence from the Prophet. [His tape titled, ‘Roddu on Dr AbdurRazzaaq Abdulmajeed Alaro 9, Dr Sharaf Gbadebo Raji; Time: 61 minutes 35 seconds to 61 minutes 50 seconds] These statements are confirmation that this man is a wicked and an unrepentant liar. These statements are mere rants of a ventriloquist. Produce your proofs if you are truthful! We thank Allaah for giving us the like of this Doctor in Southwestern Nigeria. May Allaah lengthen his life upon goodness! You’re free to request for his tapes if you are really interested in a sound knowledge based upon the methodology of the pious predecessors.

Ten; He was asked, “Question: You asserted that every bid’ah (innovation) is (a major) disbelief which will take its doer into Hell. If there is a person who makes use of the prayer bead and does every obligations of Islaam, like praying and every other thing (that is, acts of worship), will he enter hell if he dies upon this? Muhammad ‘Aliyy Jabata: You said I mentioned that every bid’ah is disbelief, so if there is a person who establishes every Sunnah (of the Prophet) but makes use of the prayer bead only (as his offence), and he dies on it after evidences have been established against him; will he enter hell? Directly! In fact he will dwell eternally in hell if the evidences are established against him. I will give you the evidence for it! I will give you the evidence during the next sitting!! He (referring to a person) mentioned that those who make use the prayer bead are wrong for doing so but it is not correct to say it is an act of disbelief, but I said it is disbelief; I will give him evidence in the next sitting. All the companions believe that it is disbelief. I hope you understand. [One of his question and answer sessions]

The first lie is his claim that the use of the prayer bead is a major disbelief. There is nowhere this statement can be found in the Qur’aan, Sunnah, or from the Consensus of the Companions, neither can it be found in the statement of those who followed them upon goodness. Ask him to prove this wrong! Funnily enough, he was unable to mention the evidence for his lies. The second lie is the claim that all the companions believe that making use of the prayer bead is a major disbelief. There is no doubt that he deliberately attributed this blatant lie to the Companions. May Allaah give him what he deserves! Chief executive officer of the habitual liars!

O lovers of the truth, now that you recognize the lies of Muhammad ‘Aliyy Jabata al-Khoorijee and the reason he is weak and rejected, however, you should take some preventive steps to avoid taking whatever is conveyed from him. Better still; develop the time to learn appropriately and from the scholars who are firm upon the methodology of the pious predecessors.

We have nothing to say about his recent ‘tatment’ and ‘grammar’ regarding his purported visit with Shaykh Yahya Al-Hajooree and Shaykh ‘Abdul-Hameed Al-Hajooree Az-za’akaree. We do not take the statement of a habitual liar. Simple!

We ask Allaah to guide us to the truth at all times. 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