Ustadh al-Boriqee Explains... on Safar al-Hawali

[ali]

What's more, Sh. ibn Uthaymin praised his al-Radd Ala al-Asha'ira, and this clearly had to be towards the end of the Shaykh's life

they also praised Zamakshari's tafseer

And from his sharh of al-Arba'in al-Nawawiyyah which was apparently done the last year of his life:


This is a lengthy discussion from his Sharh of al-Arba'in al-Nawawiyyah, in which he discusses ibn Hajar and al-Nawawi and that they are not really Ash'aris even if they agreed with the Ash'aris on some points. Towards the end he says, "How excellent is that which our brother has written concerning what he knows of their madhhab because most people think that they only oppose the Salaf in the topic of Names and Attributes. However, they actually oppose them in many things."

okay. but what does that have to do with anything. hell I even like his radd on the ash'aris. How does that absolve his deviance.

[ali]

For Rabee's so-called expertise in hadith, the following links are of interest:


http://saaid.net/book/open.php?cat=88&book=217

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showth...2232#post42232

http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread...253#post208253

http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread...9086#post29086

http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread...070#post118070

Many thanks to Sh. Haytham Hamdan for making Sh. Hamza al-Malibari's refutation of Rabee available as a word file.

Zayd al-Madkhali writes his book "al-irhaab" appareently having vehement criticisms of Hawaali, awdah, and other kharijites. Fawzan said he read it all and commends it. along with refuting other ideological kharijite points in his ajwibat al-mufeedah.

OH, he also endorses Madhaarik an-Nadhr, apparently also attacking Hawaali and kharijite theorists.

Zayd al-Madkhali alos rights that the books and shops that sell Hawaali's stuff, and awdah's stuff and other deviants, should outlaw it, and this is part of his end advise in his book "al-irhaab"

oh, and uh Fawzan said that this advise is a good advise.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

On what basis do you claim that Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-'Awdah are khawarij? This seems like a very ridiculous thing to say.

[ali]

Subhanallah, Ali, are you the same person as "al-Boriqee" on Multaqa Ahl al-Hadith?

If so, it seems we have a case like "Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde" here!

yeah

everyone there are normal

here, this is their language

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/s...03&postcount=1

a complete 180 from the multaqa.

[ali]

On what basis do you claim that Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-'Awdah are khawarij? This seems like a very ridiculous thing to say.

Imaam al-Albanee calls him to be among the rest, the khawaarij of the era.

that alone is enough, however, we have other contributions from other shiyookh, and having Bin Baz, Uthaymeen, and Fawzaan virtually affirming this, particularly after Uthaymeen's praise of him. Likewise Muqbil viewed them as perishing in deviation, both salman and safar.

These brothers here, who defend the shaykh with whatever they have is just as shaky as the madkhalis praising of Rabee using general statements of the scholars.

all of it is bogus.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

Imaam al-Albanee calls him to be among the rest, the khawaarij of the era.

that alone is enough, however, we have other contributions from other shiyookh, and having Bin Baz, Uthaymeen, and Fawzaan virtually affirming this, particularly after Uthaymeen's praise of him. Likewise Muqbil viewed them as perishing in deviation, both salman and safar.

These brothers here, who defend the shaykh with whatever they have is just as shaky as the madkhalis praising of Rabee using general statements of the scholars.

OK, so you don't know exactly on what basis these respected scholars allegedly called him that, you just know that they did.

Do you consider the possibility that Salman and Safar might have abandoned some of their earlier views which may have qualified them as khawarij to some? I.e. that the reason that they were described as khawarij may in fact no longer exist, and that therefore they are no longer from the khawarij?

[ali]

OK, so you don't know exactly on what basis these respected scholars allegedly called him that, you just know that they did.

Do you consider the possibility that Salman and Safar might have abandoned some of their earlier views which may have qualified them as khawarij to some? I.e. that the reason that they were described as khawarij may in fact no longer exist, and that therefore they are no longer from the khawarij?

1. I do know on what basis they were called so by these senior scholars whom Hawaali and co do not reach the ankle of
2. I do consider the possibility that Salman and Safar might have abandoned some of their earlier views which may have qualified them.

however, the pinnicle matter is do you beleive that they have changed.

if you were to ask Hawaali does he still regard al-Albanee to have agreed with the Murjia, then he is not deviant for merely claiming that of al-Albanee, he becomes a deivants because after the reviewing of al-Albanees aqeedah, one can only assume he is salafi in his creed and no senior scholar to this date ever construed his aqeedah to be one of irj'aa. THus for him to view al-Albanee to be a murji is to view that salafiyyah itself is a deviant aqeedah in emaan and kufr, thus making him a khariji in emaan and kufr. It does not matter whether he views the muslim ruler of Saudi who enforces the shariah to be a kaafir or muslim, well it does, but since he does not view him to be a kaafir, the cream of the crop still remains, is that he views the positions that our salaf has taken in the understanding of emaan and kufr, which was expounded al-albanee, to be one of irj'aa.

if Hawaali does infact retract the heresy related in his dhaahiratul-irj'aa, then of course, I would not regard him as a deviant, but I do not see the likelyhood of that happening

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

'Abd al-'Aziz bin Baz and Salih bin Uthaymin never called Safar al-Hawali or Salman al-'Awda khawarij, this is a deception of the murji'a.

I know that akhi, I was just answering his allegations that they did.

[ali]

'Abd al-'Aziz bin Baz and Salih bin Uthaymin never called Safar al-Hawali or Salman al-'Awda khawarij, this is a deception of the murji'a.

a lie only from a liar.

Bin Baz did regard salman and safar as the du'aat al-baatil and your heretic sect tried to insinuate that he was directing that at the shaykhs of medinah when in reality when they clarified to the shaykh your deception, he told them he was speaking of Safar and Salman.

whether he did not specifically say "khawaarij" verbatimly does not matter, he called them the du'aat al-baatil, false callers to a false madhaab, and no one can construe their mnadhaab to be anything but what al-Albanee said, the madhaab of the khawaarij, hence a khariji

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

if you were to ask Hawaali does he still regard al-Albanee to have agreed with the Murjia, then he is not deviant for merely claiming that of al-Albanee, he becomes a deivants because after the reviewing of al-Albanees aqeedah, one can only assume he is salafi in his creed and no senior scholar to this date ever construed his aqeedah to be one of irj'aa. THus for him to view al-Albanee to be a murji is to view that salafiyyah itself is a deviant aqeedah in emaan and kufr, thus making him a khariji in emaan and kufr. It does not matter whether he views the muslim ruler of Saudi who enforces the shariah to be a kaafir or muslim, well it does, but since he does not view him to be a kaafir, the cream of the crop still remains, is that he views the positions that our salaf has taken in the understanding of emaan and kufr, which was expounded al-albanee, to be one of irj'aa.

His saying that al-albani may have agreed with the murji'ah on a point or two does not mean that shaykh al-Albani was a murji'i or that he was not a salafi.

A person does not become a khariji just over an issue like that. Safar al-Hawali does not believe in coming out in armed rebellion against the rulers and istihlal of the Muslims' blood and takfir of those he disagrees with. Those are the characteristics of the khawarij. You cannot call him a khariji the way that you do just based on what you percieve to be the necessary result (lazim) of his apparent disagreement with al-Albani on a fine technicality of 'aqidah.

Safar al-Hawali is still alive today, why don't you simply phone him up right now and ask him: "Shaykh Safar, what do you say about shaykh al-Albani: salafi or murji'i?"