BOGO Alert: Purchase The Rights of the Parents in Light of the Qur'an and Sunnah get Islamic Creed for Children 50%… https://t.co/BQeNwjaMBN
Concerning the 'Journey of Faith' Conf.
- troid.ca admin
- Topic Author
The following conf. advertisement was sent to us recently. It is important for the concerned Sunnee, who values his/her deen and wishes to protect it from corruption and misguidance to review the following carefully:
Concerning Salah as Sawee
This post was made on salafitalk.net some years ago:
Topic: WHO ARE SALEH AS-SAWI AND MUHAMMAD AL-SHAREEF???
abdulilah 02-20-2003 @ 12:00 AM
Salah as-Sawee says in the book 'Ath-thaabit wal Mutaghayaraat' p.145 "And there is no distinguishing limits between what enters into Tawḥīd Rububiyyah, Tawḥīd Uluhiyyah and Tawḥīd Asmaa wa Siffaat. Rather this division in this manner - there has not been reported- as far as we know- a decisive verse, or followed sunnah."!!
However, i asked Sheikh Uthaimeen rahimaahullaah in Unaizah a few years ago about whether the 3 categories of Tawḥīd are a matter of Ijtihaad and the Sheikh raḥimahullāh said "There is one verse which mentions all three categories of Tawḥīd, Sūrah Maryah:65"
"The Lord of the heavens and earth and what is between them, So worship Him and be patient upon His worship, do you know any simlitude to Him?" [Maryam:65]
Sheikh Fawzan in his 'Duroos Minal Quran' answering the first question in the book, the sheikh refutes those who say that the 3 categories of Tawḥīd are a matter of terminology (istilaah) rather it is something derived directly from the Quran (istiqraa'i).
In Imam Miqreezi's book 'Tajreed Tawḥīd al Mufeed' he mentioned the last Sūrah's of the Quran such as Ikhlaas affirms mainly Tawḥīd asmaa wa sifaat, Sūrah Kāfiroon affirms mainly Tawḥīd al Uluhiyyah and Sūrah Falaq affirms mainly the Rububiyyah of Allaah.
Sūrah al-Faatihah and soorah Naas both affirm the 3 categories of Tawḥīd. So the Quran is all tawḥīd affirming the 3 categories of Tawḥīd from the beginning until the end. Other categories would come under these three not seperate.
This is the foundation so beware of the newly invented matters coming from speakers not scholars. Salah Sawee is not from the scholars so his point in his book is refuted along with those who made similar errors such as Zarabozo, Ali Tameemi and all those who invented the 4th category al Haakimiyyah. Hukm yes belongs to Allaah but it comes under Uluhiyyah.
Worse still comes from Salah Sawee's same book 'Ath-thaabit wal Mutaghayaraat' p.290 2nd edition: "in the offering that are to the people of the graves, and in the du'a by which they address the people in the graves - when the intent by that is seeking intercession from the wali with Allaah, and in tawaaf around them, all of that the most that be said about it is that it is innovation and not shirk"!!!
That is sufficient to know what he is upon to keep away from him and his books.
May Allaah keep us firm upon the truth with ikhlaas.
Please note: The translated quotes from Salah Sawee's book 'Ath-thaabit wal Mutaghayaraat' have been taken from our noble brother Abū 'Iyaḍ.
spubs.com 03-14-2003 @ 12:00 AM
Ṣalāh as-Saawee is not from the scholars, and he has great mistakes, and allows ijtihaad to enter issues of Imaan and Tawḥīd, and has problems in understanding affairs of shirk and matters related to the grave worshippers and there are mistakes regarding this in his books, and he challenges the established understanding of Tawḥīd (with its three types, which is taken from the Quran and is Ijmaa with Ahl us-Sunnah) and attempts to negate it, and he just like Suroor and others, belittles affairs of aqīdah and says some of these matters are old and bygone and it is not from Salafiyyah to raise them in our times. He is from the Ikhwaanees, Qutbees, Suroorees, and his dawah is built around issues of haakimiyyah, and he has many people with blind ta'assub to him.
And Shaykh Muqbil (raḥimahullāh) was writing a book on him, it is referred to in the endnotes to his book on al-Qaradaawee, and he called it "al-Kaawee fee Dimaagh as-Saawee" (the caustic/burning in the brain of as-saawee). So this person should not be referred to and his muta'assiboon followers (mainly in the US) should not be debated with.
There is no need to go into any more detail than this because the man is majrooh, by the scholars such as Shaykh Muqbil, and his errors are manifest.
abu.iyaad 03-29-2003 @ 12:00 AM
As Salaamu `Alaykum
The point about the ta'weelaat of the Soofiyyah, and that the du'aa that they make to the people of the grave, arguing that what is intended by this is to seek the walee's intercession with Allaah, or that seeking aid from the dead is merely seeking their supplication (to Allaah) and their intercession with Allaah and so on.
Then it is a calamity for Dr.as-Saawee to include these affairs into what he calls "ta'weelaat" and which ought to be counted as "doubts that negate the description of Shirk from them". In reality, these particular "ta'weelaat and doubts are no different to the saying of the Mushriks of old, as Allaah the Most High has explained:
And they worship besides Allâh things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allâh." Say: "Do you inform Allâh of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?" Glorified and Exalted be He above all that which they associate as partners with Him!
Surely, the religion (i.e. the worship and the obedience) is for Allâh only. And those who take Auliyâ' (protectors and helpers) besides Him (say): "We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allâh." Verily, Allâh will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allâh guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever.
And du`aa is `ibaadah.
And the mosques are for Allâh (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allâh.
And Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Aal ash-Shaykh wrote, quote:
"His saying, "And they worship besides Allâh things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allâh." and supplication is worship, and shafaa'ah is to request supplication (talab ud-du'aa), so it is known that their saying (that of the Mushriks) "haa'ulaa shufa`aa'unaa (these are our intercessors)" is an explanation of "...ya`budoona (they worship)..." at the beginning of the verse." (Haadhihi Mafaaheemunaa, p.143 - a refutation of Muhammad `Alawee al-Maalikee )
I suggest reading Kashf ush-Shubuhaat along with its explanations to see the serious error of Dr. as-Saawee here. The calamity is very apparent to see.
There is also a difference between the affirmation of the judgement of Shirk (i.e. takfeer) upon a specific person, or its negation,
the affirmation of the description of Shirk upon the act that they have fallen into or its negation, or the affirmation of the description of Shirk upon them on account of the act they have fallen into, or its negation. These are two separate matters.
As-Saawee says that these ta'weelaat are such that they "negate the description of Shirk from them", and this is not correct. Rather, these actions (making supplication to the dead seeking their intercession with Allaah, and in order to seek their aid, by way of the supplication of the dead to Allaah) are Shirk and they are described as Shirk, and those who fall into them described as having fallen into Shirk.
As for the judgement of takfeer upon a specific person then that is a separate matter, and unfortunately, as-Saawee has wrongly claimed that these "ta'weelaat" he has listed are to be counted as those "doubts" that have prevented the hujjah being established upon a person. As we have already seen, these "doubts" are not like that, rather these particular doubts or "ta'weelaat" as-Saawee calls them, are no more than the very saying of the Mushriks of old, as has preceded. So he has wrongly treated these "ta'weelaat" (i.e. the two particular examples given above) as being representative of "mawaani`" (barriers) to takfeer, and this is a mistake. Rather these two particular examples he has given only confirm that those making these ta'weelaat agree both in their actions and in their sayings (of justification) with the Mushriks of old. Thus these particular "ta'weelaat" are not what as-Saawee makes them out to be.
Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān says in his Sharḥ of Kashf ush-Shubuhaat,
"So whoever attached himself to the Awilyaa and sought Intercession (Shafaa`ah) from them, while they are dead, or seeks aid (Istigaathah) from them while they are dead, or seeks the fulfilment of needs from them, then he has resembled the first Mushriks about whom Allaah said, "And they worship besides Allâh things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allâh." Az-Zumar (39):3" (p.96-97)
Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymīn says in his Sharḥ of Kashf ush-Shubuhaat,
"The author mentions – raḥimahullāh – how we refer the ambiguous to the decisive and clear, and this is that the Mushriks use to affirm Tawḥīd ur-Ruboobiyyah, and would believe in that with doubtless faith. However, they would worship the Angels, and others and would claim that they are their intercessors with Allaah. And yet alongside this the Prophet (ṣallallāhu alaihi wasallam) made their blood and property lawful (to be taken). And this is a clear and decisive (meaning in the) text, in which there is no doubt and confusion, and it shows that there is no partner to Allaah in his Uloohiyyah and in His Ibaadah, just like there is no partner to Him in His Ruboobiyyah and in his ownership (mulk), and that whoever associates partners with Him in His Uloohiyyah, then he is a Mushrik, even if he affirms Allaah’s Tawḥīd in Ruboobiyyah."
[Note: And unfortunately we also read as-Saawee negating the understanding of Tawḥīd with the Salaf, claiming that no aayah or sunnah has been reported with respect to it, and that there are no defined limits as to what enters into each of the three categories of Tawḥīd. If this is his understanding of Tawḥīd, then it is not surprising for him to be wallowing in the likes of this falsehood that he has uttered here. Also from this angle, it is also not surprising that he is from amongst the Qutbiyyeen whose da`wah revolves around al-Haakimiyyah, since undertanding and categorising Tawḥīd seems to be a matter of ijtihaad to them].
Shaikh Ibn Ibrāhīm Aal ash-Shaykh said in the Sharḥ of Kashf ush-Shubuhaat,
"And the Mushriks were not Kuffaar except because of their attachment to them (the Awliyaa, Angels, Messengers) and due to their hoping for their intercession, and their bringing them closer to Allaah. These are two clear matters: a) their seeking the ambiguous as proof and b) that the Mushriks used to affirm Ruboobiyyah and Allaah declared them disbelievers due to their attachment to the Angels, and their likes – and all of this merely because they only requested Shafaa’ah and sought nearness to Allaah by this. These two matters are not from the ambiguous matters…"
Also have a good and detailed read of the following three sections from Kashf us-Shubuhaat with the explanation of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān, Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymīn and Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibrāhīm:
So from these quotations the affair becomes clear and the misguidance in the words of as-Saawee is also clear in that he has wrongly treated these "ta'weelaat" (i.e. interpretations of the Soofees) as "doubts" that negate the description of Shirk (from the act, and from the person, in the sense that he has fallen into Shirk). Whereas in reality, these so called "ta'weelaat" are the very same arguments of the Mushriks of old. And he tries to claim that these outright actions of Shirk are to be taken to be the "tawassul in which there is a difference of opinion" - so he reduces what the Legislation describes as Shirk, to innovation, and tries to bring false excuses to nullify the judgment of the Book of Allaah upon these actions.
This is only from one angle, however, in the quotations above from as-Saawee, there are numerous other angles of error, and he has mistakes in the issues of iqaamat ul-hujjah, udhru bil-jahl, and of course in his understanding of Tawḥīd itself, as it relates to what Ahl us-Sunnah are united upon with respect to it.
As for the fataawaa he has brought from the Permanent Committee, then that is a decoy away from the actual issue, because in his list of things he included:
1) supplication directed to the dead (seeking their intercession)
2) tawaaf around the shrines
3) seeking aid from the dead by supplication to them
And as has already preceded seeking aid from the dead, and supplication directed to the dead - alongside the "ta'weelaat" of the Soofees, that they only seek intercession - then that is clear manifest Shirk, in any case. For Dr. as-Saawee to come back and reply and to vindicate himself on the issue of tawaaf does not aid him in the least. Rather, his error is in the principle he is putting across by using these few examples and he has been deceptive by trying to revolve only around the issue of tawaaf around the graves and trying to use the tafseel made in those verdicts of the Permanent Committee to vindicate himself. Then let him go and find verdicts that negate the description of Shirk from supplicating to the dead, and seeking aid from them! Let him go and find verdicts from the scholars that explain that supplicating to the dead and supplicating to them for aid, with the excuse of seeking their intercession, is not major shirk! The issue here is in the principle he is trying to lay down, along with the particular examples he has used, and what he has wrongly portrayed as "doubts" in the form of these ta'weelaat - which in reality, are the very sayings of the Mushriks of old.
If as-Saawee had only said that these people may be excused due to them not knowing that they have opposed the deen that the Messengers were sent with, due to a people who misguide them, and thus, even if they fall into Shirk, we do not pass judgements upon them of takfeer until after the iqaamat ul-hujjah (i.e. after showing them that they are in opposition to the deen of Allaah and what the Messenger's brought) this would have been more appropriate.
But he did not come from that angle and entered some confusion into the matter. He entered those particular "ta'weelaat" of the Soofees (i.e. the claim of seeking intercession only by way of their du'aa to the dead and by their supplication for aid) and treated this as if it a form of tawassul which is differed over, (and tantamount only to innovation). So his mistake is in using those particular "ta'weelaat" that he chose in this instance, and his failure to note that these are not ta'weelaat that would remove their action from being Shirk, or remove them from having fallen into Shirk, but that they are the very same responses that the Mushriks of Makkah used - and that this is Shirk, regardless. If he had affirmed this and said that this is Shirk (i.e. their supplication and seeking of intercession from the dead, alongside their claim that they are only seeking intercession), however they may be excused due to them not knowing that they are in opposition to the deen of the Messengers, due to those who misguide them, this would have been more appropriate. But this is not the angle he came from.
Again I recommend a good and detailed read of the explanation of the Scholars of those passages from Kashf ush-Shubuhaat in which Shaykh ul-Islām Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab refutes the doubts of the Mushriks of old, and also the doubt that as-Saawee is spreading, in the false principle he is laying down. He is confused about the understanding of Tawḥīd with the Salaf, as is clear from this words, so it is not surprising that he falls into a mistake such as this.
-=amjad bin muhammad rafiq=-
Full thread: www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=1348
Suffice to say, if this is condition of the likes of as-Sawee, one of the most (in)famous names on this list, what does this say for the rest of them?
We certainly wouldn't make this clarification except many of the names on this list and the organisations sponsoring it claim (and have claimed for years)to be upon the 'Aqīdah of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'aah, the Salafus-Saalah and the Scholars of this Ummah despite opposing it with their statements, actions and cooperation with that which is contrary to this blessed manhaj.
I'm not convinced, I don't consider this information important, I take from them and I take from the major scholars too!
Do not underestimate the ill effects of placing your minds in the hands of Sawee and his likes, one only needs to look to those who respect and admire him such as Yasir Qadhee who said (in regards to referring back to the Noble Scholars, Inheritors of the Prophets):
With regards to going back to mashayikh oversees, then with all due respect to them I simply do not view this matter as being one that should go back to them. If I myself, having experienced first-hand the Western situation for the last few years, have changed my own views, and I am from the West, how would I then expect an alim who has lived his entire life in India or Saudi to understand our situation? Sometimes we place our ulamāʾ above the level they deserve, and that is a fact that needs to be said plainly and clearly. I say this with the utmost respect to them – after all I owe my own knowledge (after the blessings of Allah) to them. But, in the end of the day, they are human beings, and a product of their own culture and civilization, just like I am a product of mine. Of course there are other issues associated with this matter as well, which to me are not as relevant as the first one (of them is the way that the question is presented to a Shaykh; after living in Madinah for a decade I can assure you that Western students in particular, and students in general, are able to present a scenario the way *they* see it - hence a fatwa is given that is simply not relevant to the actual situation, since it was interpreted through the eyes of the students).
So who do the likes of Qadhee look up to and respect in Matters of Guidance?
"Others whom I respect and would turn to for guidance in matters related to the situation of Western Muslims are Sh. Jafar Idris and Sh. Salah al-Sawi. I spoke with both of these Shaykhs about cooperating on a public level with certain famous individuals (who have also signed the pledge)....
...In any case, I have conferred with the people of knowledge whom I look up to and who are more aware of our situation than overseas Mashayikh, and they have said that I would have to weigh out the pros and cons, which I did"
Thread Concering the pledge which Ṣāliḥ as-Sawee signed with soofees etc. (Pledge of Mutual Respect and Cooperation Between Sunni Muslim Scholars, Organizations, and Students of Sacred Knowledge): www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=6237
So make no mistake, attending gatherings like this will only distance you further away from the Scholars of Islam, cutting ties with them and replacing them with the likes of these men.
We ask Allaah to protect the Muslims from such misguidance, ameen.