Thoughts Regarding The Salafi Sect Of The Modern era

Crushing the Flak of Straws

IbnNurAlShanti
Junior Member

Posts: 58

Oct 7, 2015 at 5:48am
QuotePost by IbnNurAlShanti
on Oct 7, 2015 at 5:48am

Crushing the Flak of Straws Bundled by One Convicted of Frauds

Collaring the mortgage swindler Abu Hibban (Kamran Malik) and his stooge Abu Khuzaimah (Imran Masoom) For Their Pathetic Attack On Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi

Last Edit: Oct 7, 2015 at 5:50am by IbnNurAlShanti

IbnNurAlShanti
Junior Member
Posts: 58
Oct 7, 2015 at 8:50am

QuotePost by IbnNurAlShanti
on Oct 7, 2015 at 8:50am

[Full text below]

In the name of Allah The Most Beneficent and The Most Merciful.

Praise and salutations be upon His final messenger, his noble companions and his pure family.

A dear friend, Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi recently shared a few of his many thoughts regarding the Salafi sect of the modern era on social media. In this post, he commented upon the false claims of this sect and demonstrated that although they attach themselves to the noble salaf in name, they are in no real terms attached to them. Rather, we say as we have been saying for some time now, that they should rightly be named pseudo-salafis.

Within his post Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi made a point that the so called salafis of this age, who claim to be the saved sect known as Ahl al-Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah, are in actual fact a modern reformist movement which cannot trace its origins beyond a hundred years.

It was upon this point that two crass, insults to Islamic scholarship by the names, Abu Hibban and Abu Khuzaimah whose real names are Kamran Malik and Imran Masoom, began spewing putrid lies and confusions in reply to my noble friend. These two dimwits are well known to us, one having been convicted of mortgage fraud1  and who is yet still given authority to write on deeni matters by his stooges. A simple internet search shows that they have already been the sorry victims of a Shaykh known as Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed (hafizahullah) numerous times.2  

In an attempt to defend their sect, they twisted and misrepresented many statements of the scholars of the past as well as presenting red-herrings to prove that their ilk existed at least more than a hundred years ago.

They took the statements of the Imams regarding the pious salaf and those who adhered to their methodology, only to distort them to further their claims.

Although they are not worthy of being responded to, for the sake of saving the general masses from the confusions they have presented, below I have clarified some issues and demonstrated; their lack of intellectual capacity, their misrepresentations, contradictions and even an example of them tampering with the words of the scholars of the past!

Part One

[Their feeble “refutation” was posted as two parts on their website]

They began by making a personal, uncouth remark regarding us, saying:

“The perpetrator of these remarks were carried out by neonate, new kids on the block with new found levels of testosterone, namely Mohammad Yasir Al Hanafi”

Strange it is that men in their late thirties should feel threatened by youngsters, even more so that they worry their own diminishing testosterone levels are struggling to keep up. Perhaps by the end of this rebuttal they will be booking in for hormone replacement therapy in order to conjure a reply to us. By virtue of such an introduction one can already assert that their “refutation” will not carry much substance.

They then advise the brethren of their ilk not to engage with us as they also fear their incompetence in keeping up with us, a compliment we will accept graciously:

“The brothers should understand that attempting a refutation against the aforementioned individuals, the Deobandis and Hanafis will result in a subsequent response from them which may be difficult for those brothers to rebut and thereby causing embarrassment on behalf of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. It is indeed easy quoting what Ashraf Ali Thanvi said etc but when accusations are levied against us these brothers are nowhere to be seen.”

Besides portraying the ahnaf as villains and falsely proclaiming to be adherents of Ahl al-Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah, they admit that their clan members are good for nothing other than hurling taunts and misquoting the noble elders of Deoband when they themselves live in glasshouses. What a shame it is that they did not take their own advice, a lesson they are about to learn.

A quote is then given of a Sheikh Muhammad Fakhir attempting to refute Ash’ari’s. This quote is then fallaciously utilised in order to support the claim that the salafi sect was around two-hundred and seventy-two years ago. There is no mention of salafi in the quote, not even as a word never mind in reference to an entire sect of people. Abu Hibban and Abu Khuzaimah simply claim that this man was a “bona fide salafi” and by that expect a person to believe that the salafi sect is over 100 years old.

They then link a bogus document compiled by them claiming that the founding ulama of Deoband were supporters of the East India Company.

This document is not worth the pixels it is presented upon, simply by the fact that the struggles of the ulama of Deoband, for the liberation of India against the British are well known.

Perhaps they should address why the founding father of the pseudo-salafi movement in the Indian Subcontinent, Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan of Bohpal was under employment by the British.3

Two quotes are given of Allamah Sam’ani and Allamah Ibn al-Athir stating that people held the titles of salafi by way of attributing themselves to the salaf. This still does not prove the claim that this sect as a collective movement and the things that they teach is more than a hundred years old.

They then say;

“Rather Allamah Safarini has explained that the later scholars who adopted the way of the companions, Tabieen and Taba Tabieen are known as the Salaf (Lawameh al-Anwar (1120).”

First of all, it seems Abu Hibban and his chum have no idea how to reference; either that or they took the above quote from a secondary source because it is so poorly cited.

Nonetheless, the quote was located and we found that this is a complete distortion of what Allamah Safarini said! What he actually said was;

“What is intended by the term “madhab of the salaf” is what the noble sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) were upon, as well as the tabi’een, those who followed them and the Imams of the deen who witnessed them and recognised their greatness and virtue in the religion and from whom people took speech before them [those who came after the Imams] from.”

Further on they say;

“Imam Ibn Taimiyyah (728H) and Hafidh ibn Rajab (795H) have included Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (241H), Imam Shafi’ee (204H), Ishaq Ibn Rahawaihah (221H) and Imam Abu Ubaid (224H) to be from amongst the Salaf.”

Here they very clearly acknowledged that the first 3 generations of people were referred to as the salaf and then further on they gave references to Lawam’i of Allamah Saffarini! If Allamah Saffarini was stating here that those from the first 3 generations were regarded as the salaf then what of their claim earlier that Allamah Saffarini said that those who follow the 3 generations are the salaf? Correct your alteration of Allamah Saffarini’s text and you’ll correct your contradiction. Bear in mind that earlier they used somebody refuting the Ash’aris as evidence for the age of this Salafi sect, further on we’ll demonstrate what Imam Saffarini said regarding the Ash’aris.

A list of books is then given in which Abu Hibban and his stooge Abu Khuzaimah claim that they and their co-cultists have taken their religion from. Aside from being a mortgage fraudster he is also a fraudster in claiming to be an adherent of the way of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah), this can be enumerated in many directions and insha’Allah will be done so by many more writers soon. Simply claiming to adhere to a set of books from the salaf does not then prove that his sect originated from that time, this is a red-herring that the swindler has put forward.

An attack is then placed upon Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi on why he. as well as the elders of Deoband, adhered to the methodology of Imam Abu Hanifah in fiqh yet follow Imam Abul Hasan al-Ashari (rahimahullah) and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (rahimahullah) in aqidah. He questions;

“...we ask you, what is wrong with the Aqidah of Imam Abu Hanifah?”

May Allah help these poor men; they don’t even have that much understanding. Luckily for them Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi has already clarified this long before we were aware of this feeble attempt at a refutation:

“Most of you will probably have heard the pseudo-salafis saying to you:

"Akhī! Why don't you follow Imām Abu Hanīfah (rahimahullah) in Aqīdah? You only follow him in Fiqh. In Aqīdah you are Ashā'irah."

This sort of rhetoric, I've heard several times and to be honest, it's getting rather boring.

In my series, "Is Allāh above the Throne?", I've proven that Asha'irah/Māturidiyyah were the people who protected the Aqīdah of the Ahl Al-Sunnah, including the Creed of Imām Abu Hanifah, Imām Abu Yusuf and Imām Muhammad (rahimahumallah)

Just like Allāh had taken the work of the Qurrā in Qira'āt, e.g Imām 'Asim Al-kūfi etc, and we attribute ourselves to them in Qira'āt, in hadith Allāh has taken the work of the Muhaddithūn. Similarly in creed, Allāh has used these noble people to protect the aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah.

There is NO CONTRADICTION between the creed of Imām Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) and the Ashā'irah.

The reason we attribute ourselves to Ashā'irah is because, compared to the deviated sects that occurred in the time of Imām Abu'l Hasan Al-Ash'arī (who came AFTER Imām Abu Hanifah), we take his interpretations, which is the interpretation of Ahl Al-Sunnah. It doesn't mean our creed is now contrary to Imām Abu Hanifah's! It is merely because Imām Al-Ash'arī did that work which was needed at his time, just as Imām Abu Hanifah compiled Fiqh, which was the need in his time.

Hence, in creed ALL FOUR schools are the same, they are all Ahl al-Sunnah, whether they are Ashā'irah, Maturidiyyah or true Athariyya.”4

We mentioned earlier that we would show what Imam Saffarini’s views were upon the Ash’ari and Maturidi schools. Let us present to you exactly what he said from the very book, Lawami al-Anwar, that the two amateurs quoted (or misquoted) above. One may then wonder whether they’ve actually even read this book:

“Ahl al-Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah are three groups: The Athariyya (textualists) and their Imam is Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him), the Ash’aris and their Imam is Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari (Allah have mercy upon him), the Maturidis and their Imam is Abu Mansur al-Maturidi.”

The true reality has been shown, that Abu Hibban and his cronies are frauds in dunya and deen!

The swindler then makes an attack on the ulama of Deoband and their affiliations to the Sufi tariqahs, he says;

“Also can you explain which book of the Salaf or their teaching did the Deobandi’s acquire the Sufi tariqah, Chistiyyah or the Naqshbandiyyah from?”

This is not a matter that needs to be proven from the salaf, the turuq are methodologies of tasawwuf which were developed later and used as a means to the science of tasawwuf, the both of them should read volumes 10-11 of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Majmu al-Fatawa where he has discussed this issue and others like it. This issue will be discussed in detail in Shaykh Mohammad Yasir’s series on tasawwuf which is due to be released on the Hanafi Fiqh Channel. Nonetheless, since you’ve asked where the ulama of Deoband took these tariqahs from, please ask the following Imams also:

•Imam al-Muwaffaq Ibn Qudamah – a follower of the Qadiri Tariqah5

•Imam Abd’al Ghani al-Maqdisi – a follower of the Qadiri Tariqah6

•Imam Ibn Taymiyyah – a follower of the Qadiri Tariqah and others7

•Imam al-Dhahabi – a follower of the Suhrawardi Tariqah8

•Imam al-Shawkani – a follower of the Naqshbandi Tariqah9

•Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qinnawji (Bhopali) [founder of the ahle-hadith/salafi sect of the Indian Subcontinent] – a follower of the Naqshbandi Tariqah. He himself states that he and his forefathers were all Naqshbandi sufis as well as having authorisations in other tariqahs also. In the same passage, he too attests to the fact that Imam al-Shawkani was a Naqshbandi sufi (he had great admiration for him).10 Scan below:

Many more examples can be given but for the sake of brevity we end it here. Please give us your verdicts on these a’immah for following the sufi tariqahs, especially the founder of your sect.

Then in response to Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi stating that the salafiyya do not have any proper madaris in the UK except for a few crash courses, he says:

“The Salafis and Ahlul Hadith have been teaching in their respective madrassahs for years well before Bury and Dewsbury appeared on the scene. Madrassah’s were and are well established throughout the United Kingdom with names like Madrassah Salafiyyah. We would surely know as we studied in them in the early 80’s and the teaching was regular and consistent from the mid 70’s...The level and methods of teaching were evident and widespread where students would deliver lectures and sermons as training in the annual conferences.”

We found no official records of any established madrasah by the name “Madrassah Salafiyyah” and what classes they have been running since the 70’s. We looked for your “YouTube videos” that you spoke of and found nothing except Green Lane Masjids usual suspects. Where can we find the evidences that these are official and regular lessons? Even more so where is the proof that these classes have been running since the 70’s? Send us a nice prospectus if you get the chance. These lectures and sermons you speak of seem to be very much the “crash course halaqas” that Shaykh Mohammad Yasir mentioned. Your Friday khutba’s and evening maktab classes don’t count as official madaris on par with the various Darul Ulooms up and down the country.

You claim there are well established Salafi madrassahs throughout the UK yet you only named one which is not even on record. The Darul Ulooms up and down the UK teach their students the sahih sitta with the chains of narration all the way back to the Imams. What is the proof that this Madrassah Salafiyya taught the sahih sitta.

We challenge you to come forward and provide your chains just as Shaykh Mohammad Yasir and his fellow Deobandi graduates have.

Part 2

The two salafi stooges, Abu Hibban and Abu Khuzaimah begin their nonsensical tirade with the following words:

“In response to our dedication and efforts the hanafis deobandis of Bury and Dewsbury decided to setup Tablighi organisations against the Salafi Dawah.”

No tablighi organisation was set up solely as a response to the salafi dawah. The efforts of tabligh have been present in the UK as early as the 70’s and that is documented unlike their earlier claim!11  

They then make a very strange claim without any evidence, they say:

“It is a historical fact that the people of truth are always less in number”

This is another fallacious claim that the pseudo-salafis like to present in order to justify and explain away to their followers as to why they are always few in number in every place. They make this claim that the people of truth are few just to satisfy themselves.

However there are various ahadith to prove that the people of truth, the victorious group are always in the majority. Let the pseudo-salafis of this age ponder over the following statement of their hallmark of haq, Ibn Taymiyyah:

“The saved-sect is described as being Ahl al-Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah. They are the overwhelming multitude and the great majority (al-jumhur al-akbar wa’l sawad al-a’zam). The remaining sects are followers of aberrant opinions, schism, innovations and [deviant] desires. None even comes near to the number of the saved sect, let alone its calibre. Rather, each such sect is extremely small (bal qad takunu’l firqatu minha fi ghayati’l-qillah)” [Majmu al-Fatawa, 3/345-346]

Scans below:

Furthering on with their nonsense, they say: 

“In light of this one may ponder how the Salafi Dawah is gaining strength if they lack the Madaris as Mr Yasir claims. A further point to note is to ponder how is it that Hanafis are embracing the Salafi Dawah and not the reverse?” 

The salafi dawah is gaining strength due to the lies and propaganda that you spread! Distorting issues and presenting them to the lay people to beguile them and capture them into your web of lies. You dupe them by asking questions such as “Are you Muhammadi or Hanafi?” and their likes. Many pseudo-salafis are now returning back to the traditional methods of Islam after the nakedness of the lies the pseudo-salafis tell has been exposed, the inconsistencies in their methodologies and the twisted beliefs that they hold. In fact, it must be the authors in question to whom this is in reply to who are shivering in their “cotton khuffs” at the major turnaround that is taking place.

They then pick up on Shaykh Mohammad Yasir’s comment that they have no link to the salaf. This is brushed aside by them claiming that this has already been dealt with. In reality they have not addressed what Shaykh Mohammad Yasir said and resort to their usual use of red-herrings to escape. Shaykh Mohammad Yasir was indicating towards their lack of asaneed back to the salaf. How can one claim to be upon the methodology of the salaf yet not have any physical connection to them? What is the guarantee that what these pseudo-salafis claim to be upon, has been conveyed to them authentically?

Simply claiming to adhere to a set of books does not ensure that they are understood correctly and it certainly does not ensure any real connection to the authors, a very devious way of avoiding a very strong challenge.

A claim is then made;

“Meanwhile we the Salafis can bring forward our proofs which emphasises that our Manhaj and Aqidah has not been diluted but rather it is a mirror reflection of the Companions, Tabieens and Taba-Tabieens.”

We’ll take you up on that and we question you, why out of all of the issues that we have put forth in our videos starting from the “True Creed of The Salaf” series where it has been shown that Ibn Taymiyyah held anthropomorphic beliefs such as saying Allah is seated upon His Throne, that Allah moves etc, the taymiyyun (which the pseudo-salafis of today are) claiming that Allah’s attributes are to be taken literally; regarding which 50 quotes from the salaf and khalaf were given to prove the contrary, all the way down to a “scholar” of the ahle-hadith sect by the name of Inayatullah al-Athari claiming that Isa (alayhisalaam) was born with a father (nauzubillah)!12  Also their chief scholar, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan praising Ibn Arabi and quoting him saying that Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wa sallam) hugged Ibn Hazm and became united into one entity with him, then later claiming that this is nothing strange!13  Or how about him innovating a type of salah known as “salah kun faya kun”?14  

Bear in mind that he has claimed in his introduction that all the practices in his book are proven from the Qur’an and sunnah, please do defend your Imam and show us how this is so.There is much for you to answer, let us concede for arguments sake that the salafi sect is older than 100 years, why pick on this minute issue and not address the more pressing issues which we have already challenged you upon?

Take a look now at this interesting trap that they threw themselves into. In a desperate attempt to attack the ulama of Deoband via our adherence to the Hanafi fiqh, they attack an individual who is found in certain chains of transmitting legal rulings, they say:

"Only one needs to read the books of rijal and history to understand the Salaf within the deobandis and hanafis. For instance we can study the example of Abu Mute’a al-Balkhi and his beliefs
(Refer to Lisan ul-Mizan Vol. 2, Mizan ul-E’tidaal Vol. 1 and Kitab al-Kunna Vol. 2 of ad-Daulabi)."

Yes Abu Mutee al- Balkhi is a questionable individual but the dim-witted salafis fail to realise that this individual is present in the chain of a narration they like to utilise to further their twisted aqidah; the alleged statement of Imam Abu Hanifah in which he apparently subscribes to the view that Allah is literally above His Throne! They use this in their lessons and attacks on those who do not hold the same twisted beliefs that they do and they print this on their propaganda leaflets.

Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi has already clarified this issue and demonstrated that the self-taught muhaddith Nasir al-Din al-Albani, among his many contradictions, has classified Abu Mutee al-Balkhi weak in one place when it suited him but then has authenticated him in another place when it suited him!15 Point fingers at the ahnaf for utilising his narrations in fiqh but can you explain why you accept him in aqidah? We look forward to your answer.

After much further specious statements with no validity or reality, they come onto a closing remark that I would like to pick up on;

“This is the very deoband which was established in a Hindu city where their respective goddess would be worshipped and venerated. It is also the very deoband which was formed through the donations of Hindus and the British East India Company.”

If Deoband is to be criticised due to it formerly being a Hindu city where idol worship took place, shouldn’t Makkah al-Mukarramah also be criticised by them since no less than 360 idols were worshipped there during the days of ignorance? No evidence is provided to prove that Deoband was a Hindu city but even if it was, it is a matter of pride that our forefathers were capable of taking it from a Hindu city of idol worship into a bastion and fortress of Islamic practice and teaching. I sense some strong scents of jealousy from the envious ones that I write in response to. As for the claim that Deoband was funded by Hindus and the East India Company, once again no evidence is provided yet there is evidence which I have provided above that their sect was indeed funded by the very East India Company that they speak of.

A closing advice to Abu Hibban and his stooge Abu Khuzaimah before they tuck their tails between their legs and run all the way back to their cells; spend more time researching and providing evidences for your baseless claims rather than exhausting the only 3 brain cells that you have between the two of you in order to mould your childish wisecracks. You call yourselves “Salafi Rsearch Intitute”, thank you for demonstrating the true extent of the “research” that you can do, we found it very amusing. We may be the “new kids on the block” but for a pair of men in their late thirties, you certainly sound like a pair of delinquent teens.

The lowliest slave of The Most Merciful

Ibn Nur al-Shanti al-Hanafi

1. www.abukhadeejah.com/2001-chickens-come-home-to-roost-in-2014-for-kamran-malik-alum-rock/
2. See the shaykhs website, darultahqiq.com for refutations on them which are eye opening.
3. The Man Behind The Queen, Chapter 12: The Rise and Fall of Siddiq Hasan, Male Consort of Shah Jahan of Bhopal by Caroline Kleen
4. Available on Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi’s Facebook page [Posted on 29/09/15 12:15] (Link to post)
5. Ibn al-Mulqin, Tabaqat al-Awliya pg.494

6. Al-Ulimi, al-Manhaj al-Ahmad fi Tarajim al-As’hab al-Imam Ahmad [2/191]

7. Muhammad Hafiz al-Tijani, al-Tariqat al-Haq magazine, Rajab of year 1396. Ibn Abd al-Hadi, Ba’da al-Il’qa Bi Labs al-Khirqa andThe Hanbali School and Sufism by George Makdisi.

8. Si’yar A’lam al-Nubala [22/377]

9. Al-Badr al-Ta’li [1/406]

10. Kitab al-Tawizat, pg. 153 (Nomani Kutub Khana, Lahore)

11. One may look at the Dewbury Markaz website which states that the Islamic Seminary was established in 1980, the Markaz itself was established prior to that.
12. Ayun al-Zam Zam fi Milad Isa Ibn Maryam, pg. 91

13. Al-Taj al-Mukallal, pg. 90-91

14. Kitab al-Tawizat

15.  “Imam Abu Hanifah on Where Is Allah?” by Shaykh Mohammad Yasir, Hanafi Fiqh Channel, YouTube (link:

Last Edit: Oct 7, 2015 at 8:54am by IbnNurAlShanti