Shaykh ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī was asked: [the following is a transcribed summary tweeted by @abuiyaadsp]
[Q]: What is your position, or what do you say, what is your advice concerning the affair of Yahya al Hajūrī. Indeed we have much youth who follow him and defend him in our Land in London.
[A]: The Shaykh responded by saying “This is an issue that I have spoken about previously and I have mentioned the affair and spoken and addressed the affair of Yahyá previously. And we discussed the issue with the hope of clarifying some of these inhirafaat, some of these deviances that perhaps he would return. But as far as that which is clear now is that this individual and anybody who understands and knows what is with him and continues to persist upon following him and defending him is either one of two individuals.
Either he is a person who knows or either a person who does not know of what he has with him and so he continues to defend him because he doesn’t know what he has with him from misguidance. Or that he continues to defend him ignorantly, not knowing that he has with him these inhiraafaat. This individual needs to be advised. Perhaps he’ll return from his defence of him. Or he is an individual who knows what he has with him from deviant and misguidance, and he continues to defend him and stand with him. Then this individual takes his ruling. He takes the same ruling as him, his like and to him. For indeed the affairs that he has and the issues that this person is upon, they are many and they are numerous.
From them is his statement and his claims that the Messenger ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam errored and erred in regards to the Waasaa’ill daʿwah. That is the means of giving daʿwah and the Messenger ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam was erroneous and was wrong and made an error in how, or in the methods that are used in giving daʿwah.
From them is his statement that the Messenger ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam, we do not accept his statement except with dalīl, That the Messenger ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam himself, we do not accept his statement except with dalīl, he claims. And that no doubt ikhwaan is an indication of ignorance, for indeed Allāh subhannahu wa ta’ala has said “verily , you have in the Messenger of Allāh, a good example for anyone who seeks for Allāh and the Last day”. Here is this individual coming along and saying that we don’t accept that which has come from the Messenger even except with dalīl.
Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, he mentioned in some of the narrations that return back to something that had occurred during the time of, I believe in time of Ibn ‘ʿAbbās, when an issue was raised and mentioned and somebody had said that verily Abū Bakr and ʿUmar they say such and such, that was a narration…he mentions here an ayat…
The statement of Allāh Subhaanahu wa ta’ala, when Allāh ‘aza wa jal revealed the ayat that was a test for anyone who claimed eemaan and that is the statement of Allāh ‘aza wa jal (reads Arabic), that Allāh ‘aza wa jal revealed this ayat as a test for the people. Say: If you love Allāh then follow me and Allāh will love you and forgive you your sins. That you follow me and you follow the Messenger.
Here, we have Yahyá al-Ḥajūrī saying that we don’t accept even the statement of the Messenger except with evidence. When Allāh ‘aza wa jal is the one that said, you have a fine example in the Messenger of Allāh, and example to follow in the Messenger of Allāh for the one who seeks for Allāh and the Last Day, and we have here the statement of Allāh say, “If you love Allāh then follow me”, meaning, Muḥammad, and Allāh will love you.
Similarly from his statements is that he claims that the first of the people to hold a position, or to speak and innovate the innovation of ʿIrjā’, the innovation of the Murjīʿah was the sahaabi Jalīl ʿUthmān Ibn Madnun. That the Sahabi ʿUthmān, that he was the first to innovate the innovations and bidʿah of irjaa’ of the Murjīʿah.
Similarly, from his evil statements is the statement that he has concerning the Ṣaḥābahh, that from the Ṣaḥābahh there were some who participated in the killing of ʿUthmān raḍī Allāhu ʿʿʿanhu. That there were some of the Ṣaḥābahh, who participated he claims, in the killing of ʿUthmān. Errors and deviation in the uṣūl of the religion. Add to that, that which has come from him, from disparaging statements against the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, the people of sunnah. Statement after statement after statement.
And likewise, errors in ʿilm, errors in knowledge. For example, he mentions in terms of Takhreej, in the ʿilm of Ḥadīth, in Takhleej. He says: “Akhrajahul ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan Fat‘h al- Majīd” ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan. He attributes this statement or Ḥadīth, or what have you. He says “akhrajahu Abdur-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan.” Abdur Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan, being from the grandchildren of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, who lived recently. Takhreej is when a person attributes a hadith or a narration back to the ‘Ālim who narrated that ḥadīth with a chain of isnād; with the chain of narration. Fat‘h al-Majīd was a book that was brought relatively recently, from the grandchildren of Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. It is not a source reference. But here we have him saying “Akhrajahul”, it is referenced and it was collected by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan in Fat‘h al- Majīd. The person of Ḥadīth would know that that is not a sourced reference that one would refer back to. Rather it is authorship of a later-day scholar.
Similarly, we find numerous error after error after error in terms of that which he is upon from the lessons that he gives and the daʿwah that they are upon there. Similarly, ikhwān when you look, that you’ll see other than that various other mistakes. That you find in this clinging to the positions of Shaykh Yahyá and having Wʿalá and Barā upon his statements. Not upon the book and sunnah but upon the statements of Yahyá. That we have individuals attributing or saying that Yahyá has said and that Ḥaqq is that which has come from him. And therefore, we see that no one in these recent times has split the daʿwah in the manner in which we see him splitting the daʿwah.We see people going to his place and going to his camp for a short period of time and returning back with Mudhakiraat, with papers and with transcripts having upon them, that Shaykh ʿʿUbayd is a ḥizbī and that Shaykh such and such is a ḥizbī.And this one is a ḥizbī and that one is a mubtadiʿ. All of that after sitting a short period of time…We have individuals, I have individuals phoning me and contacting me from Moscow, with this same fitnah. Individuals contacting me from Indonesia with this same fitnah, the same issue. Going to sit with him for a short period of time, returning back to their country and we find them coming back saying such and such is a ḥizbī, ʿʿUbayd is a ḥizbī, that Shaykh al-Wassabee is ḥizbī. And that one is ḥizbī and numerous statements, ayyuhaal ikhwaa, returning back to that which they have learnt from their short period and their short stay there.
Another individual from among them, who is a close follower, near to being his right-hand man of al-Ḥajūrī, this Abū ‘Amr, and that Hajūrī…that he has made a statement in a book that he wrote, that is filled with Inhirafaat, filled with deviations and lines of poetry that are filled with various forms of deviations. Lines of poetry that indicate that they believe in Haluul, they believe in this affair of a person becoming one with Allāh subhannahu wa ta’ala. They said concerning Yahyá, in these lines of poetry that if you were to melt him, you will find nothing but an ayaat or the sunnah. If you were to melt him you would find nothing but verses from the Qurʾān or the Sunnah.
Statements that indicate or that if one understands them indicate Haluul-The belief in one becoming one with Allāh Subhannahu wa ta’ala. And we have again ikhwān, the statement that the Shaykh mentioned a narration collected by Imām Aḥmad. But some of the people differed in the presence of Ibn ʿAbbās, and some of them quoted Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. That Ibn ʿAbbās he said that “Rocks are close to falling upon you from the sky. I say to you that the Messenger of Allāh ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam says and you say Abū Bakr and ʿUmar says. And so we find that the inhirafaat, the forms of deviation that has come from him and attributed to him are many.
Similarly the statement in reference to him as the imam of Thaqalayn. They refer to him as Imam of Thaqalayn! They refer to him as the Imām of mankind and jinn. The Imam of mankind and jinn! And these are descriptions that they have given to him. That even the jinn subḥān Allāh, they have been lead (by Hajūrī)! So if an individual from among the jinn doesn’t agree with them, what then will they say about that individual from among the jinn. So we find, therefore, that the daʿwah of Messenger was far different.
(recites Arabic)…Allāh mentions concerning the Messenger “verily we have sent you as one that bears witness as a bringer of good tidings and as a warner.” These individuals (Hajaawirah) at any land that they go to, they bring nothing but destruction and nothing but harm to the daʿwah and to the people of that land.
What we find in the Messenger ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam, his daʿwah being very different. So these are affairs that are as clear as daybreak, they are as clear as daybreak. We can add to that many other affairs.
In addition to that we have evil saluk. Evil saluk and evil mannerism. In terms of his address, in terms of his usage of speech.
I remember ikhwaan that some of the students had come to me during the fitnah of Abū al-Ḥasan (al-Maʿribī). I had written in regards to Abū al-Ḥasan. I had written a refutation against him. And some of the students had approached me and said that…Yahyá al-Ḥajūrī has a refutation in 3 tapes against Abū al-Ḥasan. So I said let me listen. I’ll listen to it and I’ll give them my response the following day. He said, so I listened to the tapes. He said, by Allāh it is from the worst of that which I have heard, in terms of usage of speech, in terms of address, in terms of foul speech, and in terms of the scattered manner in which the refutation was done… ‘You, stand up, what do you have to say!’ and he stands up and says the poetry, ‘Mā shāʾ Allāh, that’s good, You! Stand up! What is your statement, such and such, this thing, urinate upon it, take this statement and urinate’ and so so…foul statements that has come from him. And I said after listening to it, it is from the worst of that which I have heard.
Ikhwān refutation is done with ʿilm. Refutation is done with knowledge. Not with foul speech and with evil statements and other than that. Rather refutation is done with ʿilm . Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah, he mentioned the fact that ʿilm is of two types.
(says in Arabic) -That is either a narration that is ascertained, that has been ascertained and affirmed or it is research that is Muhhaqqat, detailed bonified research. This is ʿilm. Anything other than that is vain speech. So he mentioned, I said to them at that time that it is from the worst of that which I have heard. Because of what is in it from evil statements, from ugly statements, and lewdness from speech.
And so in any case, we say to you, do not busy yourself with him. Do not busy yourself with him. The scholars have refuted him. His affair is clear. Do not busy yourself with the affair of this man!