[loikrso]

Bismillah
Assalamu Alaykum,

Firstly, I am not affiliated with the Habashis. But i do object to lies being spread about the ulama. Secondly, Your friends statement does not necessarily represent the views of the late Shaykh Abdallah al-Harrari al-Habashi, may Allah have Mercy on him.

Objections like, Was Islam spread by the sword?
Well firstly, this seems to be the statement of your friend, and not Shaykh al-Harrari or any of his senior students. But objectively, what would the answer be to such a question? Undoubtedly, Yes! To a certain extent it was. And only those insecure in their own belief as Muslims would argue this point.

Regarding the Qibla issue, like sidi Umar Italy said, some of the Mauritanian ulama would agree here. So it's not necessarily a black and white issue. It might be that there would be a difference whether one is in the South or North of the States. I can't really comment. Articles floating around the internet often leave out their sources and evidences, which doesn't satisfy me and until then, i will consider it hearsay.

Shaykh Abdallah was a staunch (read: extreme) Ash'ari and a Rifa'i in suluk, with maybe some what of a narrow interpretation of tasawwuf. The main problem they seem to have is the issue of Takfir of the ulama.

The article objected to:

1. Irja! This is due to being an Ash'ari, and Wahhabis consider Ash'aris to be Murji'a.

2. Tawassul

3. While this matter seems a bit unclear, it is most likely that it means that the words as in that which composes of letters and sounds came to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wassalam) from Sayyidna Jibr'il (as) and not from Allah (swt). But (many) Wahhabis believe that Allah (swt) speech is composed of letters and sounds. So once again, a clash with a classic Ash'ari understanding.

4. While i'm not sure exactly what Fiqh issues they are talking about, so i can't really comment. As the article doesn't clarify what they mean by that.

5. Can't comment.

6. From what i know Ashaykh stated that Mu'awiyah was a Baghi, and put forth his reasons for saying that, including the undisputably authentic narration, Ammar will be killed by the baghis. This is a view held by many of the Salaf, as testified to by Imam Ghazali, though he (like so many other Ash'aris) favoured the opinion of it being a Ijtihad mistake on Amir Mu'awiyahs side.

7. I can't comment on all of these things, especially since there's no sources (given) to back up such claims, but if they consider it Dar al-Harb, then also Hanafi ulama etc accept taking interest from Kuffar etc. So we must be cautious before we start accusing people or even raising suspicions.

8. Them criticising ulama and going into Takfir of some. It may be that they were right in some and wrong in others. But Shaykh Abdallah had reached high levels of knowledge and understanding, and may Allah Forgive him if he erred.

It seems as if they have done Takfir of Shaykh al-Buti because according to them he said what is not permissible to say in regards to Allah (swt). So let us assume that Shaykh al-Harrari did this with pure intentions to defend the pure Aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah. And before one has looked at the statements of the honourable Shaykh al-Buti, it's not befitting to comment on whether Shaykh Abdullah al-Harrari's objections were justified or not. Fairness is the key!


As for Shaykh Ali Jummah, i don't know his ties to Ashaykh. Once again fairness is the key, and it's not like Shaykh Jummah is flawless and exempt from criticism himself.

wassalam